Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Although the clock in the Chamber is correct, there are very few others in the House that tell the same time. In particular, the internal television was three minutes out at 2 o'clock, and time is of the essence in this place.

Madam Speaker: There has been difficulty with the electricity during the course of lunchtime, but the clocks in here are absolutely accurate. The others are being taken care of.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HERITAGE

Film Industry

Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to promote the competitiveness of the British film industry.

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): British film makers, actors and technicians are world leaders. It is important that that strength should continue. Earlier this year, I held a series of 10 consultative meetings with all sectors of the film industry, representing production, film financing, facilities and studios, film and video distribution, cinema exhibition and television. We discussed how the level of investment in film production might be raised to strengthen the infrastructure, increase activity and thus encourage competitiveness. I plan to announce my conclusions on the consultations in the new year.

Mr. Clappison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to be competitive, the film industry must have the studio capacity to attract film makers? Is he aware of the efforts being made by Hertsmere borough council to save the studios at Elstree—a name synonymous with excellence in British film making? Will he join me in wishing Hertsmere borough council well in its efforts to save those studios, which are so very important for the future of our film-making industry?

Mr. Brooke: Studio capacity in Britain must be maintained at an appropriate level, but it is determined by market forces. I am well aware of the situation regarding Hertsmere borough council and happily join my hon. Friend in wishing it well in its efforts. I am very much aware, as the whole House will be, of the significant part played by Elstree studios in the history of British film making and hope to see it play an equally distinguished part in the future, but I do not think that the matter is one in which I should intervene.

Mr. Maclennan: Before announcing his conclusions on the film industry, will the Secretary of State look at the adverse effect that withholding tax on foreign entertainers is having on their participation in British production? Does he recognise that if that tax were abolished—that may be a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer—it could substantially increase the revenue take by the Exchequer and help the British industry at the same time?

Mr. Brooke: I am aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman raised. It is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it is, as the hon. Gentleman intimated, a matter in which I also take a keen interest.

Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his commitment to market forces and his reluctance to spend Government money subsidising the industry.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. The Government provide quite significant financial support for the industry, but it was noticeable


during the consultation period that the representatives of the industry who came to talk to us were looking for things other than financial subsidy.

Ms Mowlam: Given that the latest figures shows that the United States now controls more than 80 per cent. of European film distribution, why do the French Government—but not the British Government—recognise the cultural and industrial importance of our film industry and fight our corner in the GATT negotiations? What is the Secretary of State going to do to invest in and boost the film industry?

Mr. Brooke: I hesitate to rebuke the Opposition spokeswoman, but I do not think that she is up to date on what is happening in the GATT negotiations.

Broadcasters

Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the success of British broadcasters in the international broadcasting market.

Mr. Brooke: Exports of programmes made by United Kingdom broadcasters were estimated at more than £150 million in 1992, and further opportunities are opening up world wide to provide programmes and services.

Mrs. Knight: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that BBC World Service television is increasingly popular and in some parts of Asia is now watched by more people than CNN news? Coupled with the British broadcasting industry's recent success in the Emmy awards, does not all that confirm that Britain is still making the best programmes in the world?

Mr. Brooke: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating BBC World Television on its achievements. It has expanded its operations into an increasing number of countries since it began broadcasting two years ago and, as she said, it is making a particular impact in Asia. British programmes are renowned for quality and originality throughout the world and I recognise the creative skills and craftsmanship that go into making them.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Would the Secretary of State like to amend that answer to make it clear that British programmes "have been" known for their high quality? Unless he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are prepared to treat the industry seriously, original production will begin to suffer. We have done well out of independents, but is it not clear that the Government's laissez-faire attitude to television production is the same as their attitude to film production, and that that will destroy the brilliant work that has been done and is being done now?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) drew attention to the six Emmy awards won by the United Kingdom on 24 November. It is slightly churlish of the hon. Lady to say that, as of 25 November, the situation has changed.

Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the style and clarity of reporting of the BBC World Service have built an enviable reputation for Britain? Will

he look at every possible way to ensure that we transform that skill into the presentation of news by television on a worldwide basis?

Mr. Brooke: When the BBC embarked on World Service Television, it was conscious of the reputation that it enjoyed throughout the world as the result of the World Service. It is particularly concerned that the eminence of the brand name of the BBC should be preserved by the quality of what it does on the television side.

Mr. Corbett: Is not it the case that while a large number of quality British television programmes are sold around the world by the front door, much more money is being spent via the back door by satellite and cable broadcasters on foreign films and television programmes? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise, for example, that a healthy trade surplus from television film sales a few years ago is set to become a deficit of £640 million by the year 2000? Will he consider the introduction of European programme quotas for satellite and cable broadcasters similar to those met by terrestrial broadcasters to help trade, to help to sustain our production base and to safeguard our popular culture?

Mr. Brooke: Again, I hesitate to cross swords with the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. However, European broadcasting directives already set quotas for satellite television programmes in the United Kingdom. Therefore, that condition already exists.

Arts Council

Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his policy for the future of the Arts Council; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brooke: Under the arm's-length principle, the Arts Council is responsible for providing a strategic policy framework for the arts, for managing grant in aid and for the monitoring and appraisal of arts organisations. It is important that it does so within a stable framework that provides clear accountability and is administratively effective, to allow the maximum funds available to go to the arts. I have recently announced proposals for improvements in both those sectors. We shall continue to monitor the council's efficiency through the annual planning process.

Sir Thomas Arnold: May I invite my right hon. Friend to give us his response to the lengthy article that appeared last week in the Evening Standard, written by his predecessor, our right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), who urged the abolition of the Arts Council? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread public dissatisfaction with the Arts Council's behaviour in respect of London's orchestras and that that controversy is unlikely to subside until the council clarifies its policy and shows some real leadership?

Mr. Brooke: I have no intention of abolishing the Arts Council, but I am anxious to ensure that the arts funding system as a whole runs smoothly and effectively. I fully agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex that audiences and performers are the people who matter most, and that is why we want to see more of the money that the Government provide feeding directly


into the arts. As to the orchestras, the situation is still evolving and the full meeting of the Arts Council has not yet come to its conclusions.

Mr. Sheldon: The right hon. Gentleman said that the purpose of the Arts Council was to provide a stable framework. That is exactly what it is not doing, particularly for the orchestras and the regional theatres. If the Arts Council is failing in one of its central duties, as explained by the Minister, surely we must ask what is its function. Surely the Minister needs to bring the Arts Council closer to his way of thinking, which might be a sensible way to proceed.

Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman has been a Member for a long time and knows the nature of the arm's-length principle between the Government and the Arts Council. We have had discussions in the House in the past year about the way in which the Arts Council might be more accountable to its public for its decisions. The Arts Council has made suggestions and recommendations on how that course might be pursued.

Mr. Channon: Whatever criticism some hon. Members may have about the Arts Council, is my right hon. Friend aware that at least one of his predecessors thinks that it would be sheer folly to abolish the Arts Council and to expose the Department of National Heritage—and himself in particular—to having to take individual decisons between artistic organisations? I do not know who will advise him on that. Does he agree that if he were to go down that road it would be what Sir Humphrey would call a very brave decision?

Mr. Brooke: My first words in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) were that I have no intention of abolishing the Arts Council. I am grateful for the support and reassurance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon).

Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister now address the crisis of confidence and credibility in the Arts Council that has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House? He further damaged confidence and credibility last week by his cut of £3.2 million, which will lead to the council's having to cut £7 million from its clients. Confidence and credibility have also been damaged by the Arts Council itself in the shambles over the orchestra decision and the problems with the regional theatres this summer.
Will the Minister make a much sharper and clearer statement about the responsibilities of his Department and what he expects of the Arts Council, rather than the bland generalisations that he has given the House? Will he require the Arts Council to fulfil its responsibilities and not delegate them to High Court judges? Will he announce the successor of Lord Palumbo now and not leave the decision until next year? Will he set the Arts Council a stiff target, to reduce its staff further, in line with the devolution of more than 40 clients in April? Unless he does that, the Minister's own indecision will deepen the crisis that many members on both sides of the House agree currently faces the Arts Council.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman derived a series of questions from a series of running stories in the press, which do not all go in precisely the same direction as the central thrust of his question. The distinction between the responsibilities of my Department and those of the Arts

Council have been clear throughout the almost half century that it has existed. I have reasserted those responsibilities at a time when there was concern that there might be some shading occurring within the past six months.

Press Complaints Commission

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the current operation of the Press Complaints Commission; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brooke: The Government are reviewing the effectiveness of press self-regulation under the Press Complaints Commission, but have not made their final assessment.

Mr. Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that despite one or two flagrant breaches of the Press Complaints Commission's code in the past few weeks—in particular by the Daily Mirror—self-regulation remains infinitely preferable to any form of statutory intervention? Does he accept that self-regulation must be seen to be effective? Does he agree that, to achieve this, the Press Complaints Commission should have powers to enforce its decisions and to punish newspapers that transgress the code?

Mr. Brooke: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the effectiveness of the Press Complaints Commission being perceived and transparent. I also agree with him on the desirability of self-regulation being maintained, if it possibly can be. Obviously the PCC is aware of what has been said to it during the year not only by the House, but by other sources. The Government will publish their White Paper early in the new year.

Mr. Soley: As the Secretary of State conducts his review will he bear it in mind that, despite a few high-profile cases on privacy, the vast bulk of complaints and public concerns relate to actual accuracy? I believe that the right hon. Gentleman accepts, in principle, my contention that the citizen has a right to expect news to be reported accurately, but will he take some advice, perhaps from his hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), and give the PCC real teeth, as the Advertising Standards Authority has, so that it can enforce factual accuracy, just as the ASA enforces accuracy in advertising?

Mr. Brooke: The subject is one in which the hon. Gentleman has taken a keen and long interest. There is agreement among observers that the improvement in the work of the PCC regarding accuracy and the speed of its response to complaints has been notable in the past two years. Much of the attention centres on the privacy cases. The important thing is to ensure that we do not produce a machinery that is more cumbersome than what we are seeking to improve. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his continuing interest in the matter.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that a policy of enforcing decisions is not the right way round, because it suggests some kind of prior restraint, which should be avoided? I put it to my right hon. Friend that it is desirable that the press should have roughly the same


freedoms as Back Benchers, who make misstatements and who may occasionally be awkward, but who are an essential part of democracy.

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend has given an extremely good account of himself not only in that question, but on many previous occasions. I agree with him, without wishing to make absolutely precise the analogy between himself and the national press, that that role is a useful one to have played in our society.

Royal Palaces

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the current total of public money paid to support and maintain royal palaces.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): The estimated cost in the current financial year for the occupied and historic royal palaces is £28.4 million.

Mr. Flynn: Has the Minister seen the estimate that suggests that if the royal palaces were put to full commercial use they could yield an income of £100 million a year? In these hard times of cuts in the meagre incomes of pensioners, the sick, the unemployed and the homeless, why is it necessary to loot the public purse of that huge sum of money in order to keep five palaces going to ensure that one single family can live in extravagant luxury?

Mr. Sproat: I disagree with just about everything that the hon. Gentleman has implied. I have not seen the story to which he referred, but, as for improving the contribution to the upkeep of the palaces, I can tell him that as a result of the opening of Buckingham palace earlier this year and the policy of charging for entrance to Windsor, about 70 per cent. of the money needed for Windsor will be generated.

Mr. Jessel: As £28 million works out at about 50p per head of population per year is not that extremely good value for upholding that vital part of Britain's heritage? The royal family and our traditions draw a large number of foreign visitors to our country and their spending on hotels, restaurants, internal travel and shops generates employment and a tax return to the Government. That represents very good value indeed.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is, as always, wise, lucid and persuasive.

Mr. Mackinlay: Is not it time in a modern democracy for one particular palace or home to be provided for the Head of State, the cost of which could be met by the public purse, while the rest of the palaces are either handed over to other public agencies to promote tourism or made the sole financial responsibility of the wider royal family, who should not be subsidised by the ordinary taxpayer?

Mr. Sproat: No, I do not agree with that.

Science Museum

Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had about the presentation of exhibits at the science museum; what will be the total expenditure on capital projects during the forthcoming financial year; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Sproat: Under the National Heritage Act 1983, those are matters for the board of trustees of the national museum of science and industry. However, the allocations that I announced on 30 November include an additional sum of more than £2 million over the next two years to the museum for a major capital project at York.

Mr. Shersby: Will my hon. Friend assure me that the staff of the national museum of science and industry will be fully involved in discussions about the future structure of the museum, that there will be a period of stability and that the museum will continue to make all its collection available to the public?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, certainly. My hon. Friend will know that all the redundancies have now been achieved voluntarily. My hon. Friend has taken a close interest in the matter over the past few months on behalf of his constituents and I congratulate him on that assiduousness and give him the assurance that he seeks.

Radio Gloucestershire

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had recently with representatives of the BBC to ensure the improved reception of Radio Gloucestershire in the Cotswolds.

Mr. Sproat: Officials in my Department have discussed local radio reception difficulties with the BBC. I understand that the BBC has put forward proposals to improve reception in a number of areas, including one part of Gloucestershire, and it is continuing to consider the options for the Cotswolds area.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties that my constituents in the Cotswolds have in receiving Radio Gloucestershire. Will he ensure that officials from the Radio Authority hold discussions with the BBC so that the problem can be overcome? I gather that it is a difficult, technical problem of fewer FM frequencies against the BBC providing more low-power transmitters. Whatever the eventual solution, will he encourage discussions so that my constituents do not continue to be disadvantaged by the problem?

Mr. Sproat: I am well aware of the considerable disadvantages under which some of my hon. Friend's constituents labour. I will do everything that I can that is proper for my Department to ease those problems.

Media (Violence)

Mr. Bates: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures he intends to take to restrict the exposure of children to violence in the media.

Mr. Brooke: The regulatory authorities have acted to tighten the guidelines on violence which broadcasters must follow. They have my full support and I am especially pleased that the Independent Television Commission has called for a reduction in violence and is committed to monitoring whether that reduction happens.

Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that there can be no question but that the imagery portrayed on television affects behaviour? If that were not the case, British business would be wasting £2.5 billion in advertising on television each year. Does he agree that


although the first responsibility for censorship to protect children from scenes of excessive violence must rest with the parents, there is also a role for the Government to play in tightening the existing regulation, especially in the areas of satellite, cable and video?

Mr. Brooke: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. In terms of the causal link to which he alluded when referring to the effectiveness of advertising, I have read that advertisers are confident that advertising has an effect, but never quite confident which part of that advertising has the effect, which would, on the whole, seem to endorse research done over the years that has not found a conclusive link. However, I should be the first to agree with my hon. Friend that common sense suggests that such a link must exist.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the area of video, has intimated that there will be new measures to address that in the criminal justice Bill. It is an issue in which the Government continue to take a keen interest, both in my Department and the Home Office.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State consider some of the satellite pictures of bull fighting in Spain that are now received in homes here? That would be illegal in this country under other legislation and it seems appalling that the slaughter of those creatures can be seen freely on satellite television. Will he consider the matter and propose some action?

Mr. Brooke: I was not aware of the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised, but it is something about which I shall make some inquiries.

Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that BSkyB has a responsible attitude towards the broadcasting of films on television and that it strictly applies the codes for the 16 to 18-year-olds used for the cinema? Will he agree that the causal link to which he referred in answer to an earlier question applies not only to fictional broadcasting but to the terrible images that are shown on television news? Much research has shown that television news has a greater influence on the young than violence shown in films or other fictional programmes.

Mr. Brooke: I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. As he knows, the Independent Television Commission has asked BSkyB, and BSkyB has agreed, to look carefully at the evening scheduling on its film channels. As for my hon. Friend's specific question, which has temporarily slipped my mind—will my hon. Friend give me a single clue?

Mr. Fabricant: News.

Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful; it was the switch in subject which was responsible for my forgetfulness. If my hon. Friend reads the report which the Broadcasting Standards Council published last week, he will find that, although two thirds of viewers believe that there is too much violence on television, more than half believe that the violence seen in news programmes is more justifiable than other violence on television.

Theatres (Funding)

Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received from regional theatres regarding the proposed cuts in funding.

Mr. Brooke: I have received a large number of representations both from and about regional theatres over the past few months.

Ms Jackson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that several of those representations must have come from those who benefit from the performances of our regional theatres, which are expressing grave disquiet at the possibility that their theatres will disappear? If we wish to protect our children from video violence and video nasties, surely one of the strongest safeguards is to encourage children to go to live theatre. That cannot be possible if the proposed swingeing cuts are made in what is, in effect, the nursery of not only our creative artists but our audiences of the future.

Mr. Brooke: I agree with the hon. Lady about the role that regional theatre fulfils, the apprenticeship which it provides for actors and actresses, enabling them to advance, and the value that that provides. She will be encouraged by the statistics over the past six years, which show that twice as many theatres have opened as have closed; so the news is not altogether bad.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is not simply a question of apprenticeship? Such theatres provide a platform for many touring companies, such as Touring Glyndebourne and the Welsh National Opera, which bring a high degree of excellence to many of our provincial centres. Does he further accept that we are talking about a very small amount of money? Will he please go back to his Treasury colleagues and try to get a little more?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Arts Council's decisions about the regional theatres were taken against its budget at that time. It made certain determinations. However, I agree with my hon. Friend and with the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) about the importance of that art form.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Did not the Arts Council lose a great deal of public confidence by acting the fool over the regional theatres earlier this year? Are not the Government now acting like a knave by introducing cuts that might produce the same deleterious effect?

Mr. Brooke: The chairman of the Arts Council referred to that issue when he spoke recently about the Arts Council's annual results. As for funding for the Arts Council, I was delighted that I was able to make more money available this year than had been stated. I acknowledge that the amount had been cut in the previous year.

Sir Donald Thompson: I recognise that professional theatre is all-important, but will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Foundation for Sport and the Arts on the grant that it recently made to many theatres, including one in my constituency in Todmorden where, on Saturday night, I was pleased and delighted to see a wonderful performance of the "The Wizard of Oz"?

Mr. Brooke: I am absolutely delighted to join my hon. Friend, not only in his congratulations but in his enthusiasm.

Theatre Funding, Greater Manchester

Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding the threat of funding cuts to theatres in Greater Manchester.

Mr. Sproat: I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others about theatres in Greater Manchester.

Ms Lynne: Does the Minister agree that, in the very year when Manchester will be designated the city of drama, it is ridiculous that the Library theatre and others in the area should be under threat? Does he agree that that is partly due to the fact that the Secretary of State did not secure the necessary funding in the public expenditure round and that local authorities have been forced to make cuts in their grants, because of the lack of money from the Government?

Mr. Sproat: No, I do not agree. The Library and the Forum theatres in Manchester are supported by the local authority, which meets this week to decide their future. I very much hope that it will decide to continue its support for those theatres.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Is not the recent fiasco of Arts Council funding for regional theatres in Manchester and elsewhere futher evidence that the council is simply losing its grip? This afternoon, the House has already addressed the funding of the London orchestras, which concerns me greatly, as my hon. Friend knows.
Since the Arts Council seems to have lost its grip on its responsibility for the artistic and cultural life of this country, will Ministers consider taking a fresh grip on the Arts Council by re-examining the arm's-length relationship?

Mr. Sproat: My right hon. Friend has a tight grip on the Arts Council and has managed to give it an extra £800,000 that it did not expect to get—[Interruption.] That is 1.7 per cent., which is not much in these circumstances. My hon. Friend will know that the London orchestras are being discussed by the Arts Council this week.
On provincial theatres, Lord Palumbo agreed that perhaps that matter could have been better handled by the Arts Council. Perhaps I might use this occasion to say that that is always something that the Arts Council does on the arm's-length principle, and it is not a matter for the Department of National Heritage to decide.

Tourism

Mr. Ward: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding deregulation and tourism; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Sproat: I have received a great many representations on this subject from the national and regional tourist boards, from trade and professional associations and from individual business men and women in the tourism and

leisure sectors. I reported my initial findings to the House on 27 July and I am taking up with ministerial colleagues the issues raised.

Mr. Ward: My hon. Friend will understand the importance of tourism to the borough of Poole. Does he also understand the vital necessity of withdrawing the regulations that are impeding progress and, frankly, are unnecessary? I congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues on the additional support that they are giving to the tourist industry.

Mr. Sproat: I thank my hon. Friend for the kind remark at the end of his question. I am indeed aware of the importance of tourism to Poole, and he may be interested to know that last week I met a delegation from the British Resorts Association, which is forging a new and helpful relationship with the Department. Of course, we are acutely aware that tourism is one of the largest industries in this country and that it has perhaps not always been given the attention that it should have been, but it will be given it in future.

London Orchestras

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make additional funds available to maintain the current number of London orchestras.

Mr. Brooke: I recently announced the level of grant in aid to the Arts Council for 1994–95, which includes an increase of £800,000 in the previously planned figure for next year. Within that global total, it is for the Arts Council to determine its artistic policies and priorities and the allocation of funds to individual arts organisations. Decisions on the funding for the London orchestras are, therefore, a matter for the Arts Council.

Mr. Banks: The Secretary of State is a very urbane Pontius Pilate; none the less he is a Pontius Pilate. The selection of London orchestras has been an appallaing scandal and no other city would have handled it in such a way. It is incumbent on the Government to give the London arts scene the support that it requires to sustain five orchestras.

Mr. Brooke: The House and the audience constituency must decide whether they want the arm's-length principle to be observed. The Arts Council's decisions, which have been subject to commentary, were absolutely within its right and purview. In that respect, it was a matter for the Arts Council to decide. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold), the matter has not yet been concluded, as the Arts Council still has to make a decision.

Sir Michael Neubert: Although I understand and support the arm's-length principle governing my right hon. Friend's relationship with the Arts Council, could he make it a condition of his overall grant to the council that it does not engage in the humiliating process to which London orchestras have been subjected in recent weeks? Orchestras that have illumined London's concert-going for decades have had to go through a Eurovision song contest to get funds for next year.

Mr. Brooke: I will reiterate, as I did in answer to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), that


it was a proper procedure for the Arts Council to follow in terms of its responsibilities and disposition of funds. My hon. Friend may be right if he surmises that the Arts Council has learnt some lessons from its experience.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

National Audit Office

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will make a statement on the level of funding of the National Audit Office.

Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The National Audit Office's estimate for 1994-95 of £36.5 million was considered and approved by the Public Accounts Commission on 7 December. That is £0.8 million less than what was proposed in the corporate plan approved in July.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. The National Audit Office is one area of Government activity that should be increasing its expenditure to keep a check on the waste which I have identified, just by reading a range of newspapers, as amounting to some £9 billion. Is he aware, for example, that it is estimated that the £15 million increase in the telephone bills in Whitehall have resulted from calls to the 0898 number, which is what people telephone when they are desperate for information on the cricket scores?
Is my right hon. Friend also aware that this year the Government have spent £154 million on leaflets, one of which was entitled "How to be a better dog owner"? It advises people to feed their pet regularly, give it its own sleeping basket, keep it warm and take it for walkies. Will the National Audit Office look into that kind of thing?

Sir Peter Hordern: The National Audit Office is already busily engaged with its programme, but I will draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Dr. Howells: Will the Chairman acknowledge the fact that the National Audit Office plays a crucial role in ensuring that there is no slippage in Government administration towards what one can only call an Italian mode of government?

Sir Peter Hordern: I do not know what instances the hon. Gentleman has in mind—

Dr. Howells: The Welsh Development Agency.

Sir Peter Hordern: That matter has been dealt with by the Public Accounts Committee, which I am sure will want to consider it again. The National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General will have a continuing interest in the matter.

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what funds will be made available for the National Audit Office to investigate the work of Government agencies.

Ms Lynne: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what finance will be made available for the National Audit Office to investigate the work of Government agencies.

Sir Peter Hordern: The National Audit Office budget of £36.5 billion for 1994–95 includes provisions both for financial audit of Government Departments, executive agencies and a wide range of other public sector bodies and for value-for-money investigations. The forward investigation programme of the National Audit Office is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for the Chairman's answer. Given the current debate on the subject, will he ask the National Audit Office urgently to look at the cost benefits of the Child Support Agency? Will he ask it quickly to evaluate whether all the money spent on the agency and its work is worth it, in terms of what is beeing recouped and from whom? He will be aware that the Government are reviewing the issue. It would be helpful if the National Audit Office produced a report to inform the Government's decision.

Sir Peter Hordern: The National Audit Office does undertake the financial audit of the Child Support Agency. That includes an examination of the accuracy of maintenance assessments. The hon. Gentleman may wish to know that, as part of the normal strategic planning and marketing process, developments at the agency are being monitored with a view to a possible value-for-money investigation.

Ms Lynne: Will the National Audit Office examine the work of the Prescription Pricing Authority in the light of allegations that dispensing general practitioners have been overpaid value added tax?

Sir Peter Hordern: The Prescription Pricing Authority is a very small body, whose accounts are audited by the district audit service on behalf of the Audit Commission. The audited accounts form part of a summarised account that is reviewed by the National Audit Office before final certification by the Comptroller and Auditor General. No value-for-money work is planned, but if the hon. Lady would care to write either to me or direct to the Comptroller and Auditor General, the matter will be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Refreshment Department

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what is the accumulated surplus of the House of Commons Refreshment Department; what plans there are for its use; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Paul Channon (Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee): The accumulated surplus of the House of Commons Refreshment Department trading fund was £2.7 million at 1 April 1993. As mentioned in the 15th annual report of the House of Commons Commission, it is intended to use that surplus to help to cover the cost of the Refreshment Department's modernisation programme.

Mr. Greenway: Could some of that modernisation extend to more home-made puddings in the Members' Cafeteria, instead of apple pie made by machine? Exactly


what are the refurbishment plans envisaged for that £2.7 million? There have been so many press rumours that it would help the House to know what is proposed.

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend should address the first half of his question to the Director of Catering Services or to the Chairman of the Catering Committee, and I shall ensure that he knows about it.
On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, we have not yet seen the report of the Catering Committee. When we do, we shall have to take a view of it—indeed, the whole House may have to take a view on it—but at the moment we cannot do so as the report has not yet been published.

Parliament (Access)

Mr. Miller: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what expenditure has been authorised to improve access to Parliament for people with sensory disabilities.

Mr. Gapes: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what facilities are currently available for disabled visitors to the Palace of Westminster and to each of the parliamentary outbuildings; and what financial provision has been made to improve them.

Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): Details of the facilities available for disabled visitors to parliament are set out in a leaflet that is available from the Serjeant at Arms and which has been incorporated into the Members' handbook. A sum of £250,000 is included in the proposed programme of works for 1994–95 to improve those facilities. The Accommodation and Works Committee is conducting a comprehensive review of the issue, and funding in future years will be determined once the Committee's conclusions are known.

Mr. Miller: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I direct his attention to the needs of those with hearing difficulties. Within the programme to which he referred, what action is intended to take account of the six action points in the paper, which I know he has received, from the Royal National Institute for the Deaf?

Mr. Beith: That paper has gone to the Accommodation and Works Committee, which I understand is consulting following a substantial report from the specialist architect, which it is also considering and which will form the basis of a report in due course.

Mr. Gapes: What steps are being taken to make it easier for those who have difficulty walking to pass through a number of the entrances and exits in this building —for example, the Norman Shaw building and the main St. Stephen's entrance? I know just from pushing my baby daughter in a pram how difficult it is to move around this building. Those with difficulty walking must have a terrible time. What steps are being taken to deal with that?

Mr. Beith: That is the sort of work which, among other things, we hope the £250,000 will cover. Because of the period when the building was built, some of the entrances are especially difficult to adapt. However, hon. Members

will notice that in the newer buildings, in particular, adequate provision has been made from the start and many adaptations are taking place or are planned.

Parliamentary Works Budget

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee if he will make a statement on the future of the parliamentary works budget.

Mr. Channon: Since the transfer to the House in April 1992 of the vote for works services, a 10-year rolling programme of work has been developed in consultation with the Treasury. That will provide the basis for future works budgets and takes account of the requirements of the House, such as the provision of office accommodation for Members and the need to remedy the backlog of maintenance on the Palace and outbuildings.

Mrs. Gorman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at a time when so many of our constituents are feeling the pinch and lack the spare cash to do up their homes, Parliament must be doubly careful to set an example of frugality when doing up its premises?
Although the decoration and refurbishment of 1 Parliament street are splendid, is my right hon. Friend aware that they cost about £36 million? The current refurbishment of 7 Millbank, although most desirable, represents a level of luxury of which some of us are almost ashamed. When I walk through the corridors of that building, I count the number of unnecessary light bulbs and encounter doors made of beautiful beech that are so heavy and large that a woman my size can barely shove them open—and I certainly will not be able to do so in a few years' time. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that we should think carefully when deciding the standards of accommodation for Members?

Mr. Channon: I am sure that my hon. Friend underestimates her physical and mental powers, but in general I agree with the important points that she makes. I expect that my hon. Friend realises that hundreds of people work at 7 Millbank, so it was inevitably an expensive project. She is right to say that such matters are now carefully scrutinised. Reasonable recommendations are often received from domestic committees, and work often has to be done on grounds of safety and, above all, of fire protection. My hon. Friend's point is well taken and I assure her that we will examine all budgets with great care.

Mr. Flynn: Could not part of the budget be used to solve a problem that was identified at a recent seminar for civil servants with severe disabilities? As it is impossible for such civil servants to enter the Chamber in a wheelchair, there is a bar on their promotion, because they cannot occupy the invisible Box in the corner.

Mr. Channon: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) dealt with the issue of disability a few moments ago. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I will see that it is drawn to the attention of the appropriate authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HERITAGE

Television Franchises

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what arrangements are in place to ensure that companies taking over regional television franchises fulfil the under takings in respect of meeting local and regional needs given by their predecessor.

Mr. Brooke: The Independent Television Commission is responsible for enforcing the requirements on every regional licence holder to provide regional programmes. Those licence conditions apply regardless of changes of ownership.

Mr. Gunnell: The Secretary of State will be well aware that many of the bids by companies that subsequently won franchises promised regional programmes and the creation of jobs within the regions in which those companies would operate. If Yorkshire Television's franchise, for example, were taken over by another company, that would obviously have a significant effect on the jobs in Yorkshire promised by that company when it originally sought its franchise. What will be done to ensure that regional employment is not lost as a result of the decision to allow the acquisition of franchises?

Mr. Brooke: The licence holder remains the licence holder even if another company controls the licence following a takeover. In the case cited by the hon. Gentleman in the Tyne Tees area, the licence holder would continue to be answerable to the ITC for discharging the licence that it was granted.

Mr. Lidington: Did not we hear the same scare stories from the Opposition when the present ITC regime was introduced by the Broadcasting Act 1990? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the commission has proved effective in making sure that companies observe their obligations and that there is no need to doubt that it will prove effective in future?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. The ITC said that the transition to the new arrangements was undertaken more smoothly and with greater stability than previous transitions.

Mr. Mandelson: In the light of the move by London Weekend Television to fend off Granada's predatory bid by jumping into bed with Yorkshire Television, is not the Secretary of State the least bit concerned that Tyne Tees Television could be a casualty in these shenanigans? Will he assure television viewers in the north-east that Tyne Tees Television's commercial viability and regional programme output will be entirely secure, whatever change in ownership takes place?

Mr. Brooke: As to the regional discharge of licences, I gave the answer to the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) earlier. As we discussed in the House last week, the fact that Yorkshire Television controls Tyne Tees, and the consequences that that has in terms of a takeover, are factors which would weigh in the mind of anybody considering such a takeover.

Arts Funding

Mr. Sheldon: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Arts Council to discuss funding.

Mr. Brooke: I regularly meet the chairman of the Arts Council to discuss a range of issues.

Mr. Sheldon: In reply to an earlier question, the right hon. Gentleman said that the task of the Arts Council was to provide a stable framework. Does not he agree that the thing that is clear about the Arts Council is its unpredictability? Are not the regional theatres, and Manchester in particular, suffering from that unpredictability, as are the orchestras in London?

Mr. Brooke: The Arts Council has the overall responsibility for the allocation of funds to various art forms and, when the decision is taken about which art forms, to particular institutions. It cannot be the case that those proportions are always set in concrete. The Arts Council made a decision at its recent meeting at Woodstock to allocate a larger proportion of funds in certain areas and a smaller one in other areas.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Prime Minister's Question Time

Ms Jowell: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received about the order and method of Prime Minister's Question Time.

The Lord President of the Council and the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The only representation I have received has been from the Procedure Committee in its report into parliamentary questions—House of Commons No. 687, Session 1992-93. Its recommendation was:
On balance, we do not recommend any changes designed to alter the present balance between open and closed questions to the Prime Minister.
The Government accepted that view.

Ms Jowell: Given that "Erskine May" states that the purpose of a parliamentary question is to seek information or to press for action, what steps does the Lord President propose to take to prevent time-wasting at Prime Minister's Question Time by hon. Members who are seeking neither to obtain information nor to press for action but simply to show loyalty to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee was not able to be here, but I will draw his attention to the hon. Lady's remarks. If she gives me the undertaking that no Opposition Member will seek to make political points during Prime Minister's Question Time, I might consider her request.

Oral Questions

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to amend the system for the tabling of oral questions.

Mr. Newton: I have no plans to alter the system for the tabling of oral questions.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the difficulties that some hon. Members have in tabling oral questions for a Monday due to their constituency engagements? Will he suggest to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee that those hon. Members be permitted to table oral questions for a Monday on the preceding Thursday? Failing that, will my right hon. Friend suggest to him that oral questions be taken until 6 o'clock on Monday?

Mr. Newton: There has been some consideration of that matter, and I refer my hon. Friend to the further report of the Procedure Committee, following the Government's response. Of course, I will draw the remarks of my hon. Friend to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mrs. Beckett: Is the Lord President aware that there is still concern on both sides of the House about the implications of the workings of agencies, particularly the Benefits Agency, for the tabling of questions and whether replies are offered? All too often, hon. Members who seek to table questions to the relevant Secretaries of State find that answers cannot be obtained. Will the right hon. Gentleman examine the matter?

Mr. Newton: The right hon. Lady will know that some changes have been made in the way in which those matters are dealt with—for example, to ensure that replies from chief executives appear in an appropriate way for hon. Members to be aware of them. There are no further plans to change the arrangements at the moment. However, I would not reject out of hand what the right hon. Lady has said.

Sitting Days

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Lord President of the Council on how many days the House will have met during 1993.

Mr. Newton: On the basis of the House's agreement to rise for the Christmas recess on 17 December, there will have been 165 sitting days in 1993. Allowing for weekends and bank holidays, the number of non-sitting days will have been 88. Those figures compare with the averages for the calendar years since 1979, which are 166 sitting days and 88 non-sitting days respectively. If election years are excluded, those figures become 172 and 82 respectively.

Mr. Winnick: Does the Leader of the House recognise that there will be no consensus about changing the hours and sitting days so long as the Government treat the House with the contempt that they are showing this week? Does he realise that the manner in which the House is being treated with contempt will mean that there will be parliamentary warfare well into 1994 and that the responsibility for that lies entirely with the Government and the contemptible manner in which they are treating the business of the House on Tuesday and Wednesday?

Mr. Newton: I do not, of course, accept the hon. Gentleman's comment about contempt, but no doubt we shall have opportunities to debate that tomorrow. However, quite apart from the averages that I have mentioned, there were two non-election years—1986 and 1991—within the past eight or nine years in which the figures were almost exactly the same. In 1991, the figures were exactly the same as those that I have just given for 1993. In view of the reference to the Jopling report, the following is a direct quote from that report:
Compared with the legislative bodies in other large democracies the House of Commons continues to sit for more days and for many more hours in a year than any other.
As far as the great majority of the House is concerned, I make no apology for continuing to try to act within the spirit of the Jopling recommendations.

European Council

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on last weekend's European Council, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The task that we set ourselves at this Council was to set Europe on a course towards economic recovery and the creation of new jobs. In Britain, unemployment has been falling since January, but across the rest of the Community it has been rising. Indeed, since the Edinburgh Council met a year ago, 1.5 million extra people have become unemployed. At Brussels, and in the White Paper "Growth, Competitiveness, Employment", we considered how this could be reversed.
The conclusions of the Council on the White Paper show that member states are now determined to pursue realistic, practical and market-oriented policies to improve Europe's competitiveness. In Brussels, we agreed on the need for firm control of public spending and low inflation; open markets; deregulation; a more decentralised Europe; flexibility in labour markets and reductions in social costs and the decisive role of private investment in generating economic growth.
These conclusions are very welcome. They reflect policies that we have advocated at Council upon Council. However, a number of my fellow Heads of Government, and the European Commission itself, would have found many of those conclusions unthinkable only a few years ago. Outdated policies, involving extra burdens on business and extra borrowing to fund spending by the European Commission, were firmly rejected.
Drawing on elements of the White Paper, the European Council agreed a common framework within which member states will consider measures aimed at improving the supply side performance of our economies. The emphasis on improved training and education, measures to reduce the costs of taking on new employees, deregulation at Community and national level, all closely echoed the themes of my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget last month.
I am glad to report to the House that the conclusions include the British proposal that Community and national legislation should be subjected to a test—an audit—of its effects on jobs. The European Council rejected the intrusive, damaging and defeatist notion of compulsory work sharing.
The European Council reaffirmed the conclusions that it reached at Edinburgh on the speedy completion of trans-European networks—infrastructure projects designed to improve the workings of the single market—supported by finance from the European investment bank. I am glad to say that the Council recognised the decisive role to be played by private investors in financing trans-European networks. Additional loans would only even be considered if there was evidence that priority projects were blocked for lack of finance. European Finance Ministers have been asked to examine financing in more detail with the help of the European investment bank.
The Council did not endorse the last-minute proposals brought forward for extra financing through so-called "Union bonds" issued by the Community.
There was firm agreement on the need to ensure that measures taken at Community level should not undermine domestic efforts by national Governments to reduce their own borrowing.
A theme running through all our discussions was the need for a successful conclusion of the GATT round of trade talks. That would be by far the most important boost to international confidence and job creation. Independent estimates suggest that the economies of European countries would be the biggest single gainers from the Uruguay round. Negotiations between the Community and the United States were continuing while the Council met. Sir Leon Brittan, the Council negotiator, is reporting to the Foreign Affairs Council this afternoon.
We always knew that the end game of the negotiations would be difficult. They are still going on. It is a hugely ambitious round of negotiations, covering $4.5 trillion of international trade. Success is a remarkable prize.
The Council discussed the internal implications of the GATT negotiations. The Council noted the Commission's assessment that the reformed common agricultural policy is compatible with the new commitments which would result from an agreement in GATT. Some delegations asked what the position would be if that judgment were to prove wrong. In debate on that, the Council agreed—crucially—that, if any additional measures were to prove necessary, they would not breach the financial ceilings agreed by the Edinburgh European Council.
The European Council also endorsed an excellent work programme drawn up by Home Affairs and Justice Ministers. In particular, it agreed to an Anglo-German proposal that the EUROPOL drugs unit should be set up forthwith and that the EUROPOL convention should be completed by October next year. Community action in this matter has a valuable contribution to make in the international fight against organised crime, drug trafficking and illegal immigration.
That particular decision illustrates a new appreciation in the Community of a distinction that we have long sought to make clear: between actions sensibly conducted in co-operation with our European partners, and policies which are for national Governments to decide. The principle of subsidiarity is now producing concrete results.
In Brussels, we secured agreement to repeal, withdraw or amend 17 directives out of a list of 24 put to the Commission jointly by the British and French Governments. Other Governments will now, I believe, follow suit. In particular, the German Government are pressing their own proposals to extend subsidiarity further. The necessary procedures are in place to ensure that that process continues. We are determined to maintain high standards, but we are determined, too, to simplify European legislation to make it less intrusive and to leave more room for national choice.
The European Council also discussed foreign policy issues. Foreign Ministers discussed with Lord Owen the position in former Yugoslavia. Although there has been some improvement in the delivery of humanitarian aid, obstacles to a political settlement in Bosnia remain. In a further effort towards peace, Foreign Ministers invited the parties to the conflict to a meeting in Brussels on 22 December. As the winter sets in and the suffering of the population intensifies, we must continue to seek a political settlement, however difficult this will be.
We also discussed the French Prime Minister's initiative for a pact on stability which aims to promote


stability and regional co-operation in central and eastern Europe. A launch conference will be held in Paris in the spring of next year.
I also had a useful meeting with President Yeltsin, who subsequently met the European Heads of State and Government.
At the summit, the Heads of Government agreed that the only road to economic recovery is the one upon which the Government are already embarked, with a year and a half of rising output already achieved. Low inflation, low interest rates, a reduction in industry's burdens and a lifting of the dead hand of regulation are the agreed signposts to investment and jobs. Open markets bring new opportunities to exporters; free markets encourage enterprise and prosperity. Europe still has a long way to go, but we on this side of the House will continue to point it in the right direction.

Mr. John Smith: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement.
At the outset, let me endorse the importance which the right hon Gentleman attached to a successful outcome of the GATT talks. We look forward to a full statement later in the week on the full implications for Britain of a final agreement. A successful GATT round is vital for growth and employment in the industrialised countries, and especially for our service industries. It is no less important to less developed countries in creating the prospect of increased trade for them.
As for the impact of the GATT agreement on agriculture in Europe, if it is the case that no more money can be spent on the common agricultural policy than that already agreed, does that mean that if some agricultural producers are to be compensated, some other aspects of the Community's budget will have to be reduced?
On the question of relations with Ireland, the Prime Minister made no reference to his discussions with the Taoiseach at Brussels. Can he say whether he is likely to make a statement on the subject before the House rises for the Christmas recess?
We welcome the commitment of the European Community to the substantial reduction of unemployment by the end of the century. We also welcome the strong emphasis on education and training on a Community-wide basis and the commitment to what is described in the communiqué as
economic and social progress, a high level of social protection and continuous improvement in the quality of life".
Can the Prime Minister explain how reducing unemployment benefit from 12 months to six months, and persistently under-investing in training, squares with those objectives which are said to be agreed in the Community?
On the subject of indirect labour costs, can the right hon. Gentleman explain how he justifies transferring sick pay costs of £750 million from the Government to employers in the Bill that he is seeking to railroad through the House without proper debate on Thursday?
The Prime Minister quoted the agreement on the need for the speedy completion of trans-European transport networks. If there is no shortage of funds for those purposes, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer claims, why have so many delays occurred on major transport projects in Britain? Why is there still no opening date for the channel tunnel rail link? Does the Prime Minister not see

the possibility of using extra borrowing capability at the European level to help to finance a project without which we will not have a successful rail connection with the rest of the single market?
On the question of foreign policy, can the Prime Minister say whether the discussions at the European Council will have a direct impact on the situation in Bosnia? Will more humanitarian aid be provided? Will the airlift to Sarajevo be stepped up? Will more troops be provided, as Mr. Stoltenberg has requested? Will brutality be more effectively confronted—for example, by the increased use of sanctions? If none of those things is to happen, what, if anything, of importance was decided at the European Council?
Finally, can the Prime Minister explain the Government's attitude to the extra borrowing capability in view of the severely conflicting noises which we heard before, during and after the Brussels summit? Before the right hon. Gentleman went to the Brussels summit, we heard how perverse the idea was that an extra 8 billion ecu of borrowing capability should be considered, but from the communiqué we now understand that the idea is under active consideration. If projects make sense, what is so wrong about borrowing for genuine investment in vital infrastructure projects which will improve our economy, create jobs, stimulate growth and competitiveness, and put our public finances in proper order in the medium term?

The Prime Minister: I will endeavour to respond to the points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made that refer to our discussions over the weekend, and also to those comments that he made that had no relative involvement whatever in the discussions over the weekend.
Taking the last point first—on extra borrowing and what was said before we went there—before we went to the European Council, the point was made quite clearly that we saw no case for two particular aspects of the White Paper: first, the artificial targets on job creation, which are clearly ludicrous and unobtainable and were readily dropped by everybody when they looked at the White Paper; secondly, the question whether there should be special bonds issued by the Commission to underpin a large amount of extra borrowing. That, too, was rejected by everyone—conservative Governments and socialist Governments alike—and seems to be favoured only by the Labour Opposition in this country.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the importance of GATT agreement. As he rightly said, it is, of course, especially important for underdeveloped countries because the importance to them of opening up markets is likely to be even more valuable than the present sum total of world aid at present provided to them. They will be significant gainers if we are successful in delivering a GATT round during the course of this week.
On agriculture, it was decided that, in the event that the CAP turns out not to be compatible with the GATT—and it is the Commission's view that it is compatible—there would be no more money over and above that that was agreed in the financial perspectives at Edinburgh some time ago. There are other alternatives. It could mean a redistribution of resources within the budget, price cuts or other options. There is a range of options, none of which has yet been addressed. The point of principle that there is no extra money has been addressed and determined.
Ireland was not discussed at the Council, but it was discussed between the Taoiseach and me in the sidelines of


the Council. We are both seeking a joint declaration, as the House is aware. It is important that it is a balanced declaration. I am more concerned with getting the declaration right than necessarily with getting it in a particularly short time.
As a result of the meeting that I had with the Taoiseach on Saturday, more work is currently in hand. I hope to speak to him by telephone later today, perhaps tomorrow morning. That is as yet undecided. At that stage, we will decide how and when we will be able to proceed. I am not yet in a position to say to the House whether that will lead to a statement before the House rises.
On unemployment, the whole purpose of the White Paper was to see what action could be taken in individual countries and across the Community collectively to improve the possibility of creating fresh jobs for the future. That was the whole thrust of it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about unemployment benefit, which was not a matter raised. I might equally say to him that a minimum wage, so beloved of other countries, has led, in one country at least, to youth unemployment of 23 per cent., largely in a direct relationship to that policy.
On sick pay, the reductions to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred in terms of leaving an obligation on employers have been more than compensated for by parallel reductions in national insurance contributions to the extent that the overall reduction in national insurance contributions will cost the Revenue rather more than sick pay will cost employers.
The principal reason for the delay in the trans-European networks has been that no credible projects have yet been brought forward either by Governments or by the private sector across the European Community as a whole.
So far as the channel tunnel is concerned, the right hon. and learned Gentleman probably understands as well as I do that a principal problem there has been the question of planning delays and a necessity to ensure that people are properly consulted.
On foreign policy and Bosnia, I answered the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question in the statement that I made when I referred to the further meeting that will be held on 22 December. We are keen to see Tuzla airport opened. We are keen to ensure that the delivery of aid still continues. The view among many Foreign Ministers—though this was not discussed at a Heads of Government level—is that there is not a great deal of extra scope at present for more sanctions. What is desirable is to ensure that all the sanctions that exist are rigorously enforced.

Mr. David Howell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm, and explain to the Leader of the Opposition, that more borrowing by the Community now, which will fall on the credit of the member states just at a time when we are trying to reduce our borrowing and our interest rates, would be absurd and perverse? My right hon. Friend is wholly right to resist it.
As to subsidiarity, is not the list of 16 or 17 measures from which the Community will desist a good start but rather modest considering that the United Kingdom put forward 71 measures and other countries must have put forward many others? Therefore, will he give us some encouragement that the ideas of the House and other national Parliaments and Governments will be allowed to go forward vigorously, thereby leading to a far greater list

of proposals and measures that should be unravelled at Community level and repatriated or returned to the nation states?

The Prime Minister: I can confirm my right hon. Friend's latter point. The report from the Commission was welcome. In practice it recommends the repeal of about 25 per cent. of existing European Community legislation. Some of that will be repealed completely and some will be replaced by fewer and simpler measures. That is still to be determined. The Council has asked the Commission to bring forward early proposals to put that report into effect. More subsidiarity lists will be coming forward. A substantial list from the Germans is under consideration. We shall have further proposals to make, as will France and other countries. It is agreed that that is the commencement of a process and that further subsidiarity lists will be presented to the Council for approval.
My hon. Friend is entirely right in his first point about borrowing. For sound economic reasons, right the way across Europe, Governments are seeking to reduce borrowing and fiscal deficits. It makes no sense for individual nation states across Europe to reduce their borrowing while increasing borrowing collectively through the European Community.

Sir David Steel: In view of the heavy emphasis in his statement on free market rhetoric—an emphasis that was also present in the British press briefings—will the Prime Minister confirm that the Council of Ministers did not throw out the baby with the bath water and that there is a proper element of public investment on infrastructure programmes designed to help push unemployment down? He somehow forgot to mention that.
Secondly, as to the effect of GATT on the CAP, given that there has been so much publicity about the needs of farmers in France and eastern Germany, is the Prime Minister fully aware of the needs of farmers in Scotland, who are facing imposed set-aside at an unacceptable level? Will he make sure that that issue is sorted out at the same time?

The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, there was no agreement at the summit to increase public expenditure. There is some public expenditure, which was previously agreed and in the structural and cohesion programmes, but that is long-established public expenditure agreed some time ago as justifiable. What is being added to that is the extra resources that we think will come through the European Investment Bank and the private sector to top up the money needed for trans-European networks. Only if those resources are unavailable will there be any further examination of whether money might be needed to complete desirable projects. No one is in any doubt that the resources are likely to be forthcoming from the private sector.
On agriculture, I set out the position some time ago. I am aware of the problems of Scotland and those of other parts of the United Kingdom. However, 60 per cent. of all Community expenditure is on agriculture. That cannot be a sustainable position over the long term, and we must look to reduce it, both proportionately and absolutely, as speedily as possible.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the subsidiarity report presented by President Delors not only, as he has just pointed out, holds out the prospect of repeal of 25 per cent. of Community legislation but, much more importantly, makes it clear that article 3b, as he and Chancellor Kohl negotiated it, is a substantial improvement over the position that pertained under the Single European Act? Does he further agree that we can now look to that, as in many other areas, for a new agenda for Europe, one much more in tune with the one for which he and the Conservative party have been fighting for many years?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He is entirely right about the question of article 3b, which some Opposition Members much mocked. They will now discover, when they examine the list that comes forward and future lists, that, whilst they may have mocked it in the past, they will pay homage at its shrine in the future.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: As the Prime Minister thinks that GATT will result in jobs being provided across Europe and in Britain, will he say how many jobs will be provided in Britain, and by how much the unemployment total will be reduced in two years' time if the GATT negotiations are concluded satisfactorily?

The Prime Minister: After a reasonable number of years. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and tell him how many I think it is, but it will not be too many years. We estimate around 400,000 jobs. I cannot be precise as to how many of those will be created over the next two years. The hon. Gentleman set that time frame and I will endeavour to give him an answer, but GATT does not take effect for another year, so two years within GATT will be three years from now. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and give him a figure. The overall impact of the GATT deal, when fully implemented, over time will create around 400,000 jobs in this country.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the approval of the House be sought before Her Majesty's Government commit the country to any further weakening of the unanimity rule, or any change in the arrangements for qualified majority voting?

The Prime Minister: I am interested that my hon. Friend mentioned that point. In particular, I notice that the Liberal Democrats' policy, enunciated the other day, was not to change qualified majority voting but to end the veto that has thus far been a significant part of our policy in the European Community. The ending of the veto would apply to all issues, including own resources, foreign policy, asylum and immigration policy. That is the implication of the speech made by the leader of the Liberal Democrats just a few days ago.
As to qualified majority voting, I do not have any proposals to bring before the House. There may well be discussions ahead in the Community and, if there are, I will take those issues as and when they arise.

Mr. Giles Radice: After systematically rubbishing the Delors White Paper all last week, how come the Government agreed to it over the weekend?

The Prime Minister: Because we took out the bits that we rubbished.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I received the presidency conclusions at lunchtime today and they are not very clear. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister give a clear undertaking that, as far as French agriculture is concerned, there is no question of using the reserve to exceed the guidelines, as it was used at Edinburgh, on the basis that it should not be considered as being within the guidelines? We lost 1 billion ecu at Edinburgh. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that that will not happen again? Will he protest to the President for putting out a statement called "the Presidency conclusions", which was as clear and precise as could be, that
additional funding will be provided
and ECOFIN has been asked today to
 enable the Commission to mobilise up to an additional 8 billion ecu"?
Is not this something that must be cleared up quickly in case of misunderstanding?

The Prime Minister: I am pleased to clear it up. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) on the Opposition Front Bench has been gabbling about this for the past few minutes. It will be mobilised by the private sector through the European investment bank, not through artificial loans in the Community budget. As to the reserve, my hon. Friend may or may not be pleased to know that for the immediate years ahead there is no reserve in the Community.

Mr. Peter Shore: Although I welcome the new stress on the dangerous levels of unemployment in Europe, and also welcome the recognition that a successful GATT round, increased infrastructure expenditure and wage moderation are all necessary to that end, is it not a matter of regret that the Heads of Government approved the guidelines under article 103 of the Maastricht treaty at the same time, which reaffirms both the timetable and the content of the second stage of economic and monetary union, with all that it means in cutting back on public expenditure and public borrowing? Does the Prime Minister think that it is possible to bring about an improvement in employment in Europe when, across Europe, all the member countries and states are dedicated to cutting public expenditure and public borrowing and conforming to a stable exchange rate in the exchange rate mechanism? How can that be possible?

The Prime Minister: It is not only possible; it is absolutely essential. If large fiscal deficits created jobs, there would be no unemployment right across Europe, because, in the past few years, European countries have dramatically increased their fiscal deficits at precisely the same moment as jobs have been lost. Unless we are able to reverse that trend, we will not put ourselves in a position where we are competitive enough to create permanent, long-lasting jobs. That is the policy to which each Government in the Community committed itself at the summit.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) asked about the guidelines under article 103 of the Maastricht treaty. The point about those guidelines is that they are non-binding recommendations; there is no obligation within them. They represent non-binding recommendations that would need to be met before any


country was able, if we were to get that far, to enter into stage 3 of economic and monetary union, to which, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we are not committed.
The substance of the guidelines is thoroughly sensible economic policy to make sure that we get down excessive borrowing and keep interest rates low. That is something that I believe almost every hon. Member would applaud. They are not artificial, over-prescriptive and country-specific guidelines. The whole essence of them is that member states remain responsible for setting their own economic policy in line with their own national needs and conditions.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Having just come from two homes that were bereaved — they happen to be European constituents of mine—where the fathers were brutally and hellishly murdered last night, one on the doorstep of his own home, may I put to the Prime Minister what was put to me by one of the mourners at those homes today: is the Prime Minister convinced that the IRA is really intending to cease its violence? Is he in full agreement with Mr. Reynolds when he tells the people of Northern Ireland that that is so?
Does not the Prime Minister realise that the price that the IRA will be asking for a cessation of its violence is too high a price to pay for the people of Northern Ireland? Could he say whether Mr. Reynolds is speaking for him when he says that they both have now already got 70 per cent. of an agreement?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the whole House would wish to send its deepest sympathies to the families of the two men who were so callously and brutally murdered overnight. They add to a catalogue of crime by paramilitaries over recent years which is a blot on the history of Ireland. I hope that such crime can soon be brought to an end and that we see it no more.
What I am seeking to do in the discussions that I am having with the Irish Prime Minister is, of course, to try to find a circumstance that will end such murders in the future. I have never pretended to the House that that will be easy. I believe that it is a policy worth pursuing in the hope that we will be able to bring an end to the violence that has for so long bedevilled the lives of people in Northern Ireland.
I know the concerns that the hon. Gentleman sets out on behalf of his constituents in Northern Ireland and the concerns felt by many people across Northern Ireland. In my discussions with the Irish Prime Minister, I am acutely aware of those concerns in every moment of our negotiations.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Prime Minister's expression of concern. Of the trans-European routes, has imaginative planning been undertaken by our own nation to rejuvenate the west Britain ports and the links that would take goods across to Hull and thus open other avenues to Europe for our industry, which would build up our manufacturing sector? I am delighted that some progress has been made on GATT and I look forward to developments that will allow developing countries to improve.
Under the new concept of EUROPOL, will there be better co-operation between Community countries in the fight against not only organised crime but organised

terrorism, or will we have to rely on those outside the Community to give us help, as happened recently with the arms shipment from Poland?

The Prime Minister: I certainly hope that we will get far better co-operation through EUROPOL on a range of issues, including terrorism. The particular target of EUROPOL is drugs, which are intimately related to terrorism, as a great deal of terrorism appears to be financed by drugs and money laundering. It is directly to attack those problems that EUROPOL is so attractive to Heads of Government in the European Community.
I can only endorse what the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said about the GATT round and its importance to the developing world. As I said earlier, it will provide a bigger boost to the incomes of the countries in the developing world than the sum total of aid provided by the western democracies and Japan combined, so it is clearly of immense importance to them.
All options are open on the question of the trans-European network and I shall draw the particular example to which the hon. Gentleman referred to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Paul Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread concern about cross-border terrorism and the threat of cross-border crime? Will he use his influence to ensure that the EUROPOL drugs unit is set up in the timetable that he has outlined and that there is no delay?

The Prime Minister: I can reassure my hon. Friend that it is intended that the EUROPOL drugs unit will start work in the new year. Together with the anti-money laundering and trade-related measures, it should contribute to a comprehensive anti-drug strategy. We see EUROPOL as being at the centre of the analysis of European cross-border crime patterns and for information exchanges between national police agencies. It will initially concentrate on drugs crime and its implications, as I said to the hon. Member for Belfast, South, with the intention that it will complement and support existing police activities. I believe that over time it will make a significant contribution to stemming the rising tide of cross-border crime throughout Europe.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Does the Prime Minister assume that the benefit of increased jobs from a successful outcome of GATT will accrue automatically? What steps are the Government taking to alert British industry to the special challenges that it will face?

The Prime Minister: The principal cause of job creation will be the general increased flow of trade and the increased demand that will result. That demand will be especially reflected in the manufacturing area, and the lower tariffs elsewhere will offer significant extra opportunities in the services sector. Probably some of that will occur almost automatically without rising levels of efficiency, but the hon. Gentleman is on to a good point by saying that business and commerce in the country will need to look for the opportunities that arise from GATT, to invest for them and seek to take them. The greater the extent to which they do that, the greater the extent that we shall see an increase in jobs.

Mr. Paul Channon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most urgent task for the


Community in the next few days is to achieve a successful conclusion to the GATT round? Time is running out. What are the main sticking points that concern the Community, or are they largely resolved? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a disaster for the world if concern for the French film industry allowed the talks to break down? What is the position of Her Majesty's Government and that of the European Council as a whole?

The Prime Minister: Although the present position is changing almost by the minute at the moment, Director General Sutherland achieved an agreement on most of the GATT rounds texts early this morning—about 98 per cent. of the way to the finishing line. There have been substantial negotiations between Sir Leon Brittan and Mr. Kantor, the American negotiator, who were meeting for most of the night and a good deal of today before Sir Leon Brittan had to return to Brussels to report to the Foreign Affairs Council. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is also attending that meeting.
The principal areas outstanding at the moment are difficulties on audio-visual matters—not the only outstanding matters, but the principal matters outstanding. Although the primary concerns rest with France, it is not the only European nation that has concerns over a range of audio-visual matters. I very much hope that we will be able to make progress on that as it would be a tragedy if the talks were to break down over a subject which, although important, is such a relatively narrow part of the whole GATT round at this stage. The United States has recognised the special nature of the audio-visual sector. The discussion on that has narrowed down to a relatively small number of detailed points.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Was any particular attention paid to the need for an effective Community-wide response to the political and economic refugees from central and eastern Europe who wish to take up permanent residence within the Community? It is important to have an effective economic and social strategy if we are to avoid racist attacks such as we have seen within sections of the Community.

The Prime Minister: We had some general discussion on collective asylum, which is operated co-operatively. The discussion was not specifically related to the countries that the hon. Lady mentioned, although we were all aware that there were areas of particular difficulties. The declaration on asylum commits members to common action on asylum. It is not a new proposition; it is an existing proposition. What it means in practice—so that no one misunderstands it—is that member states discuss together whether they can co-operate on asylum. They then decide intergovernmentally—not by Community decisions —whether they can take particular action. There was some discussion of that at the summit.

Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend explain how the commitment in the European communiqué to achieve economic growth by low inflation, low interest rates and tight control of public spending can be reconciled with the desire on the part of the European Commission to issue vast quantities of so-called Union bonds? How can it make sense, when every country in the Community is trying to reduce its deficit, to add to that

deficit by issuing such bonds? Would it not be far better to achieve success in the GATT negotiations than to pursue grandiose schemes of that nature?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. He states precisely the argument adopted by Britain and several other countries in our discussions at the summit over the weekend. It was for that and other reasons that a decision was taken not to proceed with the bonds to which my right hon. Friend refers.

Mr. John McAllion: The Prime Minister welcomed the moves made by the Council towards a more decentralised Europe. Does he accept that those moves are in line with the application of the principle of subsidiarity? If so, will he explain why the Government support the application of that principle by Europe in respect of the United Kingdom and, indeed, by the United Kingdom in respect of the Province of Northern Ireland, but not by the United Kingdom in respect of the nation of Scotland? Is it not the height of hypocrisy for a Government to mouth support for a principle at the Council of Ministers and then to apply that principle only when it is convenient for them to do so for party political purposes?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the definition of subsidiarity. The declaration on subsidiarity agreed by member states at the Birmingham European Council last year reiterated the point. It said:
It is for each Member State to decide how its powers should be exercised domestically.
Devolution is a separate issue. The principle of subsidiarity does not apply to the internal arrangements in member states. Indeed, such an idea would fly in the face of the principle itself, which expresses—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will listen, it is just possible that he will learn something—not probable, but just possible. Such an idea would fly in the face of the principle, which explicitly prohibits unnecessary interference by the Community in national affairs.

Sir Jim Spicer: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the directives that are to be repealed include the bathing water directive and the drinking water directive? If that is the case, will he accept the thanks of all sensible people not only in the House but in the whole country? He and his Government have given the lead in bringing about the end of that nonsensical legislation, which is expensive and entirely unnecessary.

The Prime Minister: Yes, I can confirm what my hon. Friend says. The drinking water directive and the bathing water directive both need to be completely overhauled. They are over-prescriptive and outdated scientifically.

Ms Hilary Armstrong: Shame.

Ms Joyce Quin: Shame.

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Ladies think that an outdated directive which is no longer accurate scientifically is appropriate to remain in law. It explains a great deal about the Opposition.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Prime Minister think that when he agrees any matter of principle at the European Council it is essential that this House has an appropriate debate? Can he tell the House whether we had a debate on the home and justice matters that he


agreed? Even if a convention is to be presented to the House at some due date, will that not mean that the royal prerogative used by the Government will replace the prerogative of an Act of Parliament?

The Prime Minister: I cannot conceive that any other nation state in the European Community spends remotely as much time, energy and effort on debating European matters, both before and after decisions, than this House. It is entirely proper that we should do so, but the concept that the Government should enable debate in the House on each and every issue, whether large or small, would effectively render any Government in power in no position to take decisions on behalf of the House or the country.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether we are on target to complete the negotiations with nations belonging to the European Free Trade Association on enlarging the Community according to the timetable set out at the special European Council in October?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we have reaffirmed that target for negotiating the entry of EFTA states. It is a very tough target and, although we have re-endorsed it, I cannot say that I would be surprised if we slipped a little. But at the moment the intention is to meet the target set out, so that providing that those countries get internal consent from their Parliaments and where appropriate from the referenda that they must have, they will be able to enter the Community and be full members by 1995.

Mr. Mike Gapes: The Prime Minister referred to the French Prime Minister's stability pact. Is there not a danger that the Paris 39 conference next year will complicate European Union relations with the countries of central and eastern Europe? Surely a plethora of organisations already exists, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the conference on security and co-operation in Europe and the North Atlantic Co-operation Council structures. Is it not ridiculous to establish another organisation, which does not seem to have a clear role or purpose that is distinctive from that of the others? Does he agree that it would be far better to take judicious decisions, for example, about human rights before one recognised Croatia? Does he accept that it is deplorable that there was no reference in the communiqué on the former Yugoslavia to putting pressure on the Croatian Government through economic sanctions?

The Prime Minister: On the latter question, the Community's views on each of the warring parties in Bosnia have frequently been stated at face-to-face meetings and I have no doubt that that will happen again on 22 December. No one involved in the present conflict in Bosnia can escape some share of the blame for what has occurred there in recent years.
On the stability pact, I can entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman on some matters. The focus of the ideas in the pact will be on six central and east European states and on three Baltic states. I can agree with the hon. Gentleman on the need to involve the CSCE, and all the states participating in it will be invited to the conference to launch the stability pact. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that they all have a direct interest in that. Those countries not immediately involved in the pact will be observers, and representatives of other international organisations, such as NATO and the United Nations, will also be invited.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend accept my warm congratulations on getting, as he put it, "the rubbish" out of the Delors document and on converting it into a highly acceptable blueprint for the future of Europe, along the lines for which he and his colleagues have been working so long—notably, the reduction of burdens on industry, which will enable unemployment in this country to continue to fall and that fall to spread to European countries where unemployment is, sadly, still rising?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend; she is entirely right. We agreed strongly with much in the prescription for the action plan, not least because much of it was based on the contribution made by Community member states. We made our contribution, a significant part of which appears to be reflected in the White Paper. As I said earlier, we objected to certain elements of the White Paper and they are no longer in it. The action plan, which is a framework of policies for member states to pursue, is intended to deliver growth and jobs. I emphasise that it is for member states to pursue because that is an important point for the House. Some specific accompanying measures at Community level—deregulation, subsidiarity, and largely privately financed networks—will march alongside national measures. We also propose to monitor what happens to see the impact on employment prospects over a period of years.

Mr. Jim Marshall: In his meeting with President Yeltsin, did the Prime Minister make it clear that Russia will not have a right of veto over the future security arrangements of the countries of central and eastern Europe?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that President Yeltsin has entertained the ambition that he should have such a veto. President Yeltsin and I discussed the internal affairs within Russia, the prospects for the election, and the co-operation agreement which President Yeltsin seeks to negotiate with the European Union. We did not discuss the countries to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does the Prime Minister agree that this afternoon's statement has illustrated to all fair-minded Members of Parliament in this Chamber the value of the United Kingdom being at the centre of European matters? Should not the few doubting Thomases who were not in favour of the Maastricht treaty now feel ashamed of themselves because their number is diminishing outside the House?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has a golden tongue.

Ms Glenda Jackson: The Prime Minister referred to the European Free Trade Area countries as being "winners" following a successful round of GATT negotiations. Does he agree that there will be sizeable losers, not least the signatories of the Lomé convention, particularly sub-Saharan Africa? As, by 2002, the winnings are estimated to be approaching £120 billion, will he guarantee that he will argue, within the European Union, that a sizeable percentage of those enormous profits will be set aside to help countries that are currently in no position to help themselves?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is quite right to the extent that some of the provisions will hurt individual countries. Some of them will not be amenable to this country, the United States, Japan or Germany. All countries will find that some issues do not help them. However, because of the substantial anticipated growth in world trade—[Interruption.] It cannot be real until it has happened. Of course it is anticipated, but it is almost certain. The overall impact of the substantial anticipated growth in world trade is that nearly every country, including most sub-Saharan countries, will gain.
The Lomé convention provides special arrangements for a number of countries. Many of those are complex and, in the negotiations, there has been careful examination of relatively poor countries that do not have the political clout to protect themselves sufficiently to ensure that they are not unduly damaged. If it turned out that those countries were being damaged, particularly sub-Saharan Africa where we have a long-standing historical role, we would certainly seek to do what we could to protect them.

Mr. Bowen Wells: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has achieved, at this first European Council since the signature of the Maastricht treaty, the rejection of centralised borrowing by the Commission and strengthened subsidiarity considerably, does that signal that, at future Council meetings, we can look forward to more decentralisation and strengthening of nation states' co-operation within Europe?

The Prime Minister: I certainly expect more subsidiarity items to be agreed. Whether they will be agreed by next June or by next December, I cannot be certain, but more items under the subsidiarity principle will be remitted for national Governments to determine, which implies that there will be further repeals of Community legislation.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Last Thursday, the Leader of the House, when he stood in for the Prime Minister at Question Time, suggested that transparency and openness would be on the agenda at the Heads of Government meeting. In a democracy, is it not a fairly basic premise that people should know how their representatives vote? Was that matter discussed at that meeting? Will the Prime Minister ensure that information is supplied to the House on the way that our Ministers vote in Europe?

The Prime Minister: The United Kingdom was in the lead in discussing transparency and openness at the European Council. However, it is a principle that did not meet with universal favour among our colleagues. British Ministers are always available at the Dispatch Box to be questioned on how they voted on any issue.

Mr. James Clappison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is highly desirable that, in the deliberations on the financing of infrastructure and the trans-European networks, the maximum possible role is given to public and private sector co-operation? Does he further agree that that is a far more prudent course than the unhealthy and incredible obsession with borrowing exhibited in certain quarters, including by the Leader of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said earlier about the trans-European networks, some

areas of public expenditure have long been agreed. The figures come from memory, but I believe that there is about 5 billion ecu in the structural and cohesion funds and about 7 billion ecu in the European investment fund. We are now looking for more from the latter fund. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that that is where the maximum amount of money should come from, but I also want the House to appreciate that there is some money in the structural and cohesion funds, which is effectively public money that will help to fund various items.

Mr. Barry Jones: It is said that the airbus project is an obstacle to GATT. What assurances can the Prime Minister give to me and to the 2,000 of my constituents at Broughton who make the wings of the airbus that he and the Government will fight our corner? Is he aware that British Aerospace is largely reliant on a successful airbus project? Will he assure us that he is fighting his corner and that President Clinton's election promises made in Seattle last year to Boeing airbus workers will not tip the scales in this important matter?

The Prime Minister: I share the hon. Gentleman's view of the importance of this matter. Of course, we do not negotiate directly in the GATT round—the European Community is collectively represented by a negotiator, Sir Leon Brittan. Both the United States and the negotiator are aware of our special interests. We have made it clear to the Commission, and hence to Sir Leon as negotiator, that it is essential that aero engines and indirect support are covered, as in the current Chairman's text.

Mr. James Paice: I give a warm welcome to the first 17 directives that are to be reviewed or abandoned. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that is just a foretaste of things to come? In particular, can he say whether the TUPE regulations are included, as the press led us to believe over the weekend? I very much hope that we are witnessing a change in attitude by the Commission and that, having introduced this list, it will take a positive rather than negative look at future lists put forward by this Government or, indeed, that put forward by the Germans, to which my right hon. Friend referred. Should not that attitude also apply in future to any proposed directives?

The Prime Minister: I confirm that the acquired rights directive is among those to be repealed or examined. That incorporates the TUPE regulations to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the Prime Minister aware, in respect of his meeting with Mr. Reynolds, that the feeling remains that if the opportunity for peace is lost now it may be lost for a long time to come? Bearing in mind the vile murders over the weekend to which reference has already been made, as well as the ethnic cleansing of Catholic people last week, is it not all the more necessary to go the extra mile in seeking agreement with the Irish Republic? We all recognise of course that any such agreement, which is highly desirable, will not necessarily end terrorist killings on both sides.

The Prime Minister: It is important to try to take the opportunity to make the progress that it is possible to make at the moment. It is important that we reach a balanced agreement—one that can be seen to be fair by all the communities in Northern Ireland. That is not easy to


obtain; achieving a balanced agreement with the maximum chance of stopping violence is what is taking so long. I do not know how much longer it will take. We will not unduly delay, but it is worth while taking extra trouble to see if we can find a solution. I cannot promise that we will be able to do so.
If we cannot because genuine points of difference cannot be reconciled, we shall have to come to the House and say that it was not possible to reach agreement. I hope that that will not be the case. We are working hard to see whether agreement can be reached. If it is, we shall announce it as speedily as possible.

Mr. Graham Riddick: It is not clear now, bearing in mind comments made earlier from Conservative Benches, that one of the most significant aspects of the European Council was the beginning of the reversal of the European Commission's endless regulations and unnecessary interferences in matters that could be handled better at national level? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the important role that he played in that process. Is it not in stark contrast to that of Opposition parties, who want to pass more of Britain's sovereignty to Brussels?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. Some matters are more appropriately handled at national rather than pan-national level. The essence of subsidiarity is that such matters should be done at a national level. There will always be areas where it is most appropriate for us to deal with matters collectively, and they will continue to be dealt with that way. However, I hope that we shall over time examine all existing legislation and determine which of it, in an excess of enthusiasm over the past 10 years or so, has gone to the European level but would have been better left at national level.

ESTIMATES DAY

1ST ALLOTTED DAY

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1993-94

Class II, Vote 2

Peacekeeping Operations

[Relevant documents: The Third Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee of Session 1992-93 on The Expanding Role of the United Nations and its Implications for United Kingdom Policy (House of Commons Paper No. 235) and the Government Observations thereon (Cm 238) are relevant.

The Fourth Report from the Defence Committee of Session 1992-93 on United Kingdom Peacekeeping and Intervention Forces (House of Commons Paper No. 369) and the Sixth Special Report from the Committee of Session 1992-93, containing the Government's Observations thereon (House of Commons Paper No. 988) are also relevant.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £98,121,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on grants and subscriptions etc. to certain international organisations, special payments and assistance, scholarships, military aid and sundry other grants and services. —(Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Mr. David Howell: I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the vital questions of peacekeeping, the United Nations' contributions to peacekeeping efforts around the globe, the third report from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, "The Expanding Rôle of the United Nations and its Implications for United Kingdom Policy", the Government's recent reply to that report, and the Government's reply to the recent request from the United Nation's Secretary-General for follow-up comments on peacekeeping operations—all of which documents are available.
The Foreign Affairs Select Committee report published last June was a substantial piece of work and it is appropriate to offer words of thanks to those who contributed to it, in addition to the hard-working Committee. I refer in particular to Mr. David Travers of the university of Lancaster, specialist adviser to the Committee.
The study of the United Nation's expanding role involved extensive travel, although not exactly to holiday spots. Members of the Committee visited Cambodia, Croatia, Macedonia, Kosovo, Nairobi and Somalia, as well as the United Nations. I thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for arranging for posts to give members of the Committee strong support. I mention in particular Sir David Hannay at the United Nations, Mr. Burns in Cambodia, Mr. Sparrow in Croatia, and Foreign Office officials who accompanied some visits where there was no diplomatic representation—such as Mr. George Busby, who travelled from Belgrade to accompany the Macedonia and Kosovo group, Mr. McCrudden from the post in Nairobi, and Mr. Geoff Cole, who travelled specially from London to join the Somalia group.
There was a considerable amount of support and help for the Committee, and I am grateful for that. The report was written and prepared while enormous changes were going on in the material that we were studying and in the nature of the United Nations operations around the planet.
In May the Foreign Secretary stated that the United Nations had operations in four of six continents. At the beginning of 1992—some 23 months ago—there were 10,000 peacekeeping troops deployed around the globe. At the beginning of this year, that figure was 60,000—a vast increase. Indeed, if the Mozambique deployments during this year develop as it was thought that they would, the figure would rise to 100,000 peacekeeping troops deployed around the globe and administered and directed from the United Nations in New York and Geneva.
The cost of those operations in 1992 was $3 billion, of which the United Kingdom contributed $90 million. The figure has risen rapidly during this year, with the latest figure showing that the United Kingdom contributed $60 million in the first three months of 1993 alone. I imagine that our contribution for the whole year will be far in excess of any that we have made in the past.
While the Committee was writing the report, huge changes were occurring. Since then, even more rapid and striking changes have occurred in peacekeeping operations and in world opinion about those operations. I think in particular of the virtual flip in opinion in the United States about the new world order and about the role of the United Nations. I am afraid that that change has occurred since June and has been driven primarily by deep disappointment and bitterness over events in Mogadishu.
The change has been driven in particular by the vivid photographs of the corpses of American service men being dragged by jeering mobs through the streets of Mogadishu. The photographs have had a fundamental effect on American opinion. More than any other communication, those horrific photographs have had the effect of turning opinion in the United States—and possibly elsewhere—against the high hopes of the United Nations of managing a new world order, and against a great deal of the work of the United Nations. The photographs also turned opinion against the idea of America playing a forward role as the world's policeman here, there and everywhere.
The United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Ghali, has gone on record as saying that the United Nations is giving up on the idea of peace enforcement—perhaps as a result of that incident. It is not giving up on peacekeeping, of course, but it is giving up the idea of military enforcement to bring about peace in the world's trouble spots. That has occurred in the past in the Korean war and to a considerable extent when Saddam Hussein was pushed back out of Kuwait. The Secretary-General's comments came after the production of the report and to that extent events have overtaken us.
Meanwhile, since we visited the former Yugoslavia as part of the production of the report, there has been the grim recognition that the partition of Bosnia is inevitable. I think that it might have been more realistic to realise earlier that that was coming, and to raise hopes of keeping an independent Bosnia less high. Many lives have been lost in pursuing that unattainable objective.
Meanwhile, again, Mr. Arkan terrorises Kosovo. Preventative deployments have taken place in Macedonia

and that is a good thing. Sanctions against Serbia are still in place, but they do not seem to be working effectively. As the House has heard, others are pressing for sanctions against Croatia, and that has also happened since the Committee produced the report.
Also, Mr. Jan Eliason—who the Committee met when he was head of the department of humanitarian affairs—has resigned amid some doubts about the effectiveness of those new arrangements at the United Nations. The United Nations has sent a mission to Georgia, and there has been an international peacekeeping effort of a kind which, I confess, I know little about. The United Nations has also been involved in Haiti, where frigates—including one from this country—have been deployed. In the middle east, the PLO-Israeli deal is now threatened by extremists, while elsewhere in the middle east, Saddam Hussein continues to assert his claim to Kuwait, to question the implementation of United Nations resolutions and to attack the marsh Arabs. Indeed, he may have been implicated in using chemical weapons yet again.
Although there may be many other developments, the final development that has occurred in respect of United Nations peacekeeping and its financing is the fact that the United Kingdom has unfortunately been pushed off the United Nations Budgetary Committee. When the Minister replies, I would like to know how serious that is. We tend to be pushed off every three years and then get back on again. However, this is a bad time not to be as near as we can to the centre of the administration of United Nations finances.
All these developments have produced a change of mood since the summer and earlier in the year when it was thought that the United Nations would be the answer to every prayer. We have now gone to the opposite extreme: from excess euphoria, we have bounced over to excess gloom. It seems that the United Nations cannot achieve many of the things that people hoped it could after the end of the cold war.
I believe that the gloom is overdone. When Dr. Boutros Ghali paid me the honour of asking my opinion on the matter, I told him that, despite all the criticism and the change of opinion in America, I thought that the gloom was overdone and that the United Nations remained a very powerful instrument which, reformed in the right way, can deliver a major contribution to world stability and the ending of violence and fragmentation around the globe.
That was the spirit in which we wrote our report. On that basis, we set out a range of proposals for reforming the United Nations and its administration and methods for tackling international crises and for intervening. In our very long report, we argued that the United Nations cannot do everything. That was obvious. As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) put it very graphically—and we used his words in paragraph 263 of the report—the United Nations cannot
wipe the tear from every eye.
When deciding where it should intervene and where it should move on from humanitarian intervention to more heavyweight intervention, it is necessary to have criteria to decide upon what principles it should work. We set out some of those criteria in paragraph 267. We argued that they were the kind of questions that policy makers and national governments should ask before they decide to support a resolution to intervene in a particular trouble spot.
The Government have produced a reply to our lengthy report which is, if I may say so, a little diffuse and not made easier to comment on by the fact that there are no numbered paragraphs. However, from reading the report, I feel that the Government are not so enthusiastic about those criteria as the Committee was. At least the Government agree that there must be a mandate specified from the outset before intervention. That is very important indeed.
We argue that one must go further than that and ensure that countries which commit themselves and their policies and resources must be aware from the start that the most timid initial humanitarian intervention can lead to a much more complicated military involvement. That is the point at which people who have committed themselves at the start must stay committed and not turn their backs and walk out leaving the United Nations floundering.
It appears from the Government's response to our report and their response direct to the Secretary-General that they agree with our Committee that better command and control procedures at the United Nations are badly needed. They agree with our suggestions, and the suggestions of others, that a proper planning and operations staff at the United Nations is required. They agree with our thoughts about better communication and information flows for the United Nations.
When the United Nations tries to command and control a force in the field, in a sense it operates blind because it does not have its own intelligence networks. We must consider what nation states can do, without undermining the national interests concerned, to provide better information and intelligence flows. I detected from the Government's reply that they recognise that that problem can be met.
The Government also agree with the Committee that one should be sympathetic to the idea of stand-by forces for the United Nations. There is a sharp distinction between stand-by forces and standing forces. Stand-by forces would enable the United Nations to know what capabilities are available for certain needs and requirements around the world. The United Nations would be able to have an effective list of what was available.
The Committee turned down very strongly the different idea of having standing forces waiting about to be deployed by the United Nations in certain missions. We believe that that idea was not sensible because missions vary vastly and one never knows exactly what kind of troops are required. The same argument applies to the idea of earmarking particular forces for United Nations work.
In their reply, the Government do not appear to agree with our argument about sanctions. We argued that really limited sanctions tend to become more and more limited and are finally eroded to the point of uselessness. We believe that if sanctions are to be effective, they must be applied with vigour in a full-blown way from the start. We made that point in paragraph 130.
It is a pity that there is reluctance to recognise that point. It would be very valuable to have sanctions working effectively on Serbia at the moment—although I am not sure whether it should be part of a deal in exchange for land. If they were working really effectively, they would at least create conditions in which the Bosnian Muslims do not feel that they are being asked to accede to a totally unjust peace. That is what they feel now as they know that

the sanctions are not working thoroughly and that both their opponents, Serbs and Croats, have access to more arms than they do.
We should now re-examine the sanctions procedures. We should argue that very much tougher sanctions should be maintained at all times, and particularly now with regard to Serbia.
All in all, the aim of the report was, as we state in paragraph 263, to describe
a range of practical ways in which the work of the United Nations could be made more effective, which we call upon the United Kingdom Government to support—especially ways of extending the diplomatic and other preventive work of the Organisation, its Secretary-General and the other UN agencies.
Obviously what we said was not comprehensive. There are United Nations missions and activities around the world which we did not get near and some of those may turn into demands for heavier commitments of resources before very long.
We are at a critical moment. There is a tug of war between the belief that the United Nations can solve all the post-cold war problems as they grow and the belief that the United Nations had lost credibility in various areas, including in Yugoslavia and particularly in Somalia. The Americans say that they are going to pull out on 31 March whatever happens—and heaven knows what will happen after that. There could be some very dark developments in some of these areas.
There are regions of success. Namibia prospers as a result of United Nations efforts. The United Nations is withdrawing in Cambodia and it looks at the moment, although this may be a dangerous prediction, as though a more peaceful order will prevail. However, there is nothing but defeat and setbacks in other areas.
With those mixed feelings, with some caution about over enthusiasm and hope that the United Nations can be reformed, we set the report before the House. I hope that it will be valuable and useful to hon. Members as we contemplate this vast business of peacekeeping, with all its expenses and frustrations, which lies before us in ever growing quantity.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and his Committee on a most comprehensive report on an extremely important and difficult subject. Over the next few years, the report will be regarded as absloutely essential to how the United Nations develops.
I also thank the Government for choosing this aspect of the Foreign Office estimates to be discussed. The debate enables hon. Members to examine many of our international commitments. We do not normally have such an opportunity. Also, the debate allows us further to re-examine the role of the United Nations in this post-cold war era, with the background of the Select Committee's valuable report.
The debate also encourages interested hon. Members to come to the House on a Monday, when there is only a one-line Whip and when there will probably be only one vote, to advance their interests in respect of many countries. The Government participate in a very wide range of peacekeeping activities within the United Nations.
I must admit that, not being an expert or an accountant, I lost my way somewhat when I examined the estimates. I thank the Foreign Office officials for their generous help in


filling in the gaps—literally. Some sections of the estimates, particularly those dealing with international organisations and peacekeeping forces, are not clear to the lay person. Perhaps the Government could do a better job in presenting funding figures in the same currency, providing more comprehensive explanations of expenditure, and advising when assessments correspond with projections.
Our present commitments are comprehensive and world wide, but they are also different and reflect different involvements. As the right hon. Member for Guildford said, one cannot anticipate problems or what one needs to do to try to resolve them. One of the biggest issues that we fact—it is mentioned in the report—is when and where the United Nations could and should be involved. When does it have, as the French call it, le droit d'ingerence, or the right to interfere?
In his "Agenda for Peace", Dr. Boutros-Ghali, the Secretary-General, suggested that it was time for the United Nations to consider fighting natural disasters as well as man-made ones. However, the continual question is whether an ostensibly global organisation should infringe the national sovereignty of affected nations when their own Governments do not meet their needs. That question is much easier to answer when it is applied to natural disasters or humanitarian crises, but it is much more difficult to resolve, as we have seen in Yugoslavia, when sanctions and military force need to be deployed.
The Foreign Affairs Select Committee suggested some guidelines that should be drawn up for humanitarian assistance, but the Government pointed out—yet again, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—in a most inadequate response to the Committee that such guidelines would erode the flexibility of the United Nations to respond to emergencies. However, it is obvious that the present system is not working. Some guidance is necessary, but only to reassure a Government or areas that come under scrutiny or need action that they are not being picked out for special treatment and that nations are responding objectively.

Sir David Steel: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the universal declaration of human rights gives the basis for such an alteration in guidelines? It is a later document than the charter and it emphasises that individuals and communities have rights under whatever nation state. That should be the starting point of the guidelines.

Mr. Rogers: I accept that that point could be considered, but the Select Committee and the Government, in fairness to them, realise the enormous difficulty in drawing up guidelines. Bearing in mind the report to which the right hon. Member for Guildford referred, one could make a very strong case for interference by the United Nations in the affairs of this country, particularly in respect of Northern Ireland. I do not know whether Parliament would agree to that.
The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) should bear that point in mind when it comes to interfering in the affairs of sovereign states. After all, the United Nations was founded on the

principle that member states are sovereign, that their boundaries are inviolate and that it would be wrong to interfere in the affairs of a member state.
When discussing the United Nations and peacekeeping, it would be wrong to ignore or overstate the part played by non-governmental organisations. The commitment, dedication and humanitarian work of NGOs is unquestioned, but a lack of both funds and Government support often prevents them from fulfilling or completing their tasks.
In a written answer on 16 July, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said that the Government do not earmark money for British-based NGOs and that money is neither given directly to NGOs nor specifically to United Nations programmes for the funding of NGOs. Perhaps the Minister will say whether that is still the Government's policy. I am sure that other hon. Members agree that the ability of NGOs to act swiftly in providing humanitarian aid is not only crucial in relieving suffering but could obviate the need for more formal United Nations intervention, even of a non-military kind.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I am sorry, but I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman's question. On occasions, money is made available to NGOs to spend in countries of concern. That happens quite frequently. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is seeking an answer to a different question. I did not quite follow the line of his question—I apologise.

Mr. Rogers: On 16 July 1992, a written question was answered by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. He said:
We shall continue to consider on their merits requests from British non-governmental organisations to fund specific projects … We do not earmark for non-governmental organisations any specific part of our contribution to the United Nations programme."—[Official Report, 16 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 968.]
The Government should re-examine that policy and perhaps set aside a small amount for NGOs to ensure that relief operations can begin in the interval between the emergence of humanitarian crises and the decision of member states to send in a United Nations mission.

Mr. Jim Lester: If the hon. Gentleman analysed the facts, he would agree that the Governmnent have consistently used NGOs more and more each year, as they are very relevant to certain countries and certain conditions. If the hon. Gentleman analysed the Foreign Office estimates, he would find that non-governmental organisations have had more and more money each year to carry out the work that we all agree is necessary.

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman may be right—I confessed that I had difficulty in wading through the estimates. However, I looked for that specific matter, and it is in a special section. If the hon. Gentleman examines it, he will see that money is not specifically earmarked on a year-by-year basis for NGOs, but that is not to say that money is not given on specific request.
As we know, the end of the cold war brought about a completely different international situation. There was a period where there were clearly defined roles and interests, but now there is a great deal of uncertainty. We also know that the United Nations has never functioned as originally intended because of the bipolarity in the exercise of the veto when interests were threatened. The Security Council


of the United Nations was able to make firm decision on only a few occasions—for example, with regard to Palestine, Korea, the Congo, South Africa and the Falklands.
The passage of resolution 678 in 1990 with regard to the cold war led everyone to hope, as the right hon. Member for Guildford said, that the United Nations could fulfil the constructive role envisaged by its founders and perhaps positively create a new world order. Unfortunately, since then—partly because of the accelerated break-up of totalitarian regions—the number and complexity of conflicts has meant that the United Nations has been asked to fulfil tasks that, for many reasons, it is unable to do. Of the 27 peacekeeping operations undertaken since 1948, 13 are still under way and eight have been launched in only the past two years.
I am sure that we can recall all the relative optimism when it was agreed that the United Nations should be used to resolve the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Indeed, last year, the right hon. Member for Guildford told the House:
The Select Committee took the view that our hopes must rest on the United Nations as an effective force. It may have to remain in Yugoslavia for some time."—[Official Report, 5 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 464.]
That comment expressed hope, but it also realistically anticipated despair—an anticipation which has been fulfilled. One cannot see a resolution to the problems in the former Yugoslavia—but that is true in almost all instances. Most of the problems in which the United Nations has become involved have remained unresolved. In Bosnia, peacekeeping forces have an inadequate mandate and are too small to be effective.
In Cambodia, the elections were monitored and the United Nations will now withdraw, but the UN was still unable to cope when one side did not accept the result. At present, the difficulties between the Khmer Rouge and the elected Government are still on the table. In Somalia, a massive force is unable to resolve the problems because of the lack of administrative and government structures and a mandate that is not clear. In Western Sahara and Angola, the same inabilities persist.
An analysis of those relative failures shows that there is a common theme in all the situations. The Security Council of the United Nations was not able to act decisively and quickly, its mandates were inadequate, its resources were inadequate, and the problems and political aims were not clearly identified. Those shortcomings raised the whole question of the future of the United Nations, its role and its effectiveness.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, some people now question and criticise the United Nations as an institution. Some talk about using other institutions and structures to resolve conflict and, indeed, creating new structures to achieve that objective. Fortunately, a vast majority of politicians and countries realise that there is no real alternative to the United Nations. What is also evident from analysing the issues that have been resolved by the United Nations is that regional organisations have not been able, for various reasons, to do much about the problems either.
Neither the European Community nor the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe is able to stop the bloodshed in the former Yugoslavia. In Angola, Somalia, Mozambique and the Sudan, the Organisation of African

Unity has been unable to resolve the conflicts. The Organisation of American States is still unable to deal with several crises in its hemisphere, especially in Haiti.
Obviously, the answer lies in increasing the effectiveness of the United Nations, both internally by improving its decision-making processes and making resources available to implement decisions taken, and externally by reviewing its relationship with member states and the regional groupings of those states. We believe that there is a role for regional organisations, either independently or in conjunction with the United Nations, in resolving most conflicts, which are, after all, almost always regional.
We know that peacekeeping and peacemaking can be brought about not only by sanctions and the use of force but by such means as arms control, disarmament and confidence-building measures, improving the economic and social conditions in the areas of conflict—that is perhaps ignored and not invested in—using effective preventive diplomacy and providing efficient peacekeeping mechanisms.
Undoubtedly, the present resources and energy of the United Nations are spread too thin. Member states still prefer action that is low cost with a limited commitment. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is much easier for the United Nations and its member states to rely on economic sanctions of debatable efficacy which are often broken and unenforceable, and unlikely to address the structural problems of the political systems at which they are directed.
As well as the vast increase in the activities of the United Nations, the concept of peacekeeping is undergoing profound change. That area is under active review not only in the Select Committee's report but in the report entitled "Agenda for Peace" of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. That report is sensible, realistic and challenging.
The Secretary-General proposed that members of the United Nations must provide resources to implement the potential decisions that are given in the report. For example, he suggests that the United Nations should move from peacekeeping to peacemaking, including crisis prevention and the preventive deployment of troops; that peacekeeping should be expanded to include the imposition of sanctions and involve the training of civilian police in politically neutral military forces; and that more effort should be made in post-conflict peacebuilding which is essential to ensure that peace, once established, takes firm hold.
Those proposals would require substantial changes within the United Nations. But whatever changes come about, all the other reforms of the United Nations are irrelevant without financial reform. In September 1992, an international advisory group on United Nations financing observed that the United Nations lived from hand to mouth. The committee, which was chaired by Shijuro Ogata and Paul Volker, made some simple suggestions: all countries should pay their assessed United Nations due on time and in full; interest should be charged on late payments; the working capital fund should be doubled from the present level; and other measures should be introduced to improve the financial efficacy of the organisation. Those issues are highlighted in the Select Committee's report.
Whatever is finally agreed, there is an urgent need for a link between peacekeeping operations and the process of political settlement, and for a strengthening of the mandate of peacekeeping forces to ensure the security of personnel


and prevent parties to the conflict from impeding the conduct of operations. If the United Nations is to be more effective, it must develop the intelligence-gathering facility referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. It is grossly unfair to criticise the United Nations for its operations in certain areas of the world, because it simply does not have the facility to gather intelligence so that it can plan its role in any area almost on a day-to-day basis.
The Opposition are absolutely committed to a future role for the United Nations. We firmly believe that the creation of a new world order—indeed, world peace—relies on an effective international organisation. The search for other structures, for example, such as that that we see in Europe at the present time in relation to NATO and the Western European Union, are not incompatible with the function and role of the United Nations, but they cannot and will not be a substitute for the United Nations itself. I believe that the report by the Select Committee is of significant importance and will be used in any future discussions about the role of the United Nations. But it is important that the House gives unequivocal support for the United Nations and for its development as an effective institution for world peace.

Sir Michael Marshall: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, for the documents that are before us, which clearly underpin so much of our debate today. The whole House will recognise, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said, that, in many ways, the documents can be seen as important reference works when we look at the grave problems of United Nations peacekeeping activities around the world.
As we are under pressure of time, I shall be brief and concentrate my remarks on the challenges facing the United Nations and its direct British support in the peacekeeping role in Bosnia. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out so vividly in his article in the Sunday Times yesterday, there has been a tendency for media attention to drop away, in that rather sad way we see when somehow it becomes yesterday's news.
All the signs are that the problems in Bosnia are worse now than at any time. The estimates which were made last year for the possibility of half a million dead because of starvation—which, thank God, were not realised—have become a real concern and possibility in this much harder winter. This is happening at a time when military activity has been stepped up and when there is a feeling that there is a fight to the finish. Against that background, I strongly support what the estimates imply in terms of additional and increased activity in United Kingdom assistance in peacekeeping and in disaster relief for Bosnia.
I shall concentrate on the degree to which the efforts of the United Nations, our Government and national resources may be backed up by parliamentary endeavour. As I have said, I recognise the important role that is played by the two Select Committees, whose reports we are considering. I recognise, too, the roles that are played by

others who are represented here today, including the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and by many of our colleagues involved in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and in the Council of Europe. I do not seek to make any special claim for initiatives to which I and the organisation that I have the honour to lead in the Inter-Parliamentary Union can lay claim.
I returned yesterday from Geneva after a meeting at the weekend of our executive in which we tried to decide how an international parliamentary mission might be of use in this grave situation. Like so many others before us, we have found real difficulty in identifying practical and effective steps to end the tragedy. However, we are conscious of the fact that the mandate which was given to us by 125 Parliaments, which was brought forward at our conference in New Delhi in the spring, clearly called on us to hold consultations on human rights and to support efforts for peace in the region.
As a result, I took the opportunity in June to accept invitations from the Speakers of the Parliaments of the former Yugoslavia, now Serbia and Montenegro, Croatia and Slovenia, to visit them. That was as a direct result of their membership of the IPU. Following our latest discussions over the weekend within the executive of the IPU, it is clear that there is a strong feeling that we should now make an effort to add to that a dialogue, through first-hand experience in Bosnia, particularly in Sarajevo—although we have no formal links as such with Bosnia.
A number of elements have become clear from all the discussions we have had during our meetings over the weekend involving the 13 countries represented on the executive. The problem is by no means confined to the countries in Europe. The concerns, especially for the Muslim peoples of the former Yugoslavia, are widely shared by our membership. Attempts are being made to find practical methods and to achieve co-operation between north and south. At the same time, we do not wish to be seen simply to be going on for "me-tooism" or to get in the way of those involved in the critical task of disaster relief.
In that particular task, it is clear that our country, our military forces and those who support them are playing an outstanding part. We asked ourselves what were realistic objectives for a mission of this kind. It is important to understand the unique nature of our links with the country of Yugoslavia—Serbia Montenegro—which, because of its continued membership, meets us regularly. We have access to it, yet it is in a situation which shows a weakness of the United Nations—it has been effectively ruled out of any activity in the General Assembly.
Such opportunities for activity are virtually nonexistent, and the country's links are confined to technical committees such as the Economic and Social Council. It seemed to many of us that there were opportunities to pursue, for example, the issue of war crimes in discussions in Belgrade, and that, recognising that war crimes were by no means confirmed to one of the three protagonists, those talks should be extended to discussions in Zagreb, with the added interest and support of Slovenia, with the Parliament of Ljubljana, which has been particularly constructive in the dialogue.
Because we recognise many of the anxieties that have been expressed by hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Minister, about the United Nations' difficulty in taking action on war crimes, particularly with respect to access to those identified, it seemed appropriate to try to


work out a range of proposals which we hoped would help. We came up with three objectives. The first was to encourage the promotion of domestic prosecution of alleged war criminals who found themselves on the territory of any of the three states under the appropriate Geneva conventions.
The second was to promote mutual assistance between parties in criminal matters involving grave breaches of the Geneva conventions and protocol 1—for example, additional protocol one, article 88—and co-operation with the United Nations under additional protocol 1, article 89. Although I cite those technical details, in the interests of time I will not spell them out. Their deterrent effect will be familiar to many who are in the House tonight.
Thirdly, it seemed to us that there was an obvious opportunity to promote better respect for human rights in all the countries that would be visited by such a mission; but, particularly in Bosnia Hercegovina, we felt that, although in the overall sense we were looking at human rights, we should clearly devote every effort to support peace efforts. That included support for our own military, and others on the ground.
I have therefore written today to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, seeking direct support by Her Majesty's Government in facilitating the mounting of such an expedition. It is envisaged that it will be made up of representatives from Australia, Argentina and Scandinavia. with my own oversight as president and possible involvement in leading the delegation, in whole or part, depending on logistics and the opportunity to fit in with others in the mission.
Although we will also seek the support of the United Nations through our Geneva headquarters, the reason for seeking support from Her Majesty's Government to what essentially is an international expedition stems in part from past experience; we had outstanding support in the visits made last June to Belgrade, Zagreb and Ljubljana. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford said, we have all found that our diplomats and those in the field have had a particularly useful and well-organised approach to providing access not just to the people whom we might normally expect to meet but to the media, opposition parties and others who want to put forward a more critical line than we would simply receive if we met those representing the Government parties.
In all those arrangements, it is proposed that our mission should be staffed by the head of the IPU presidential office in London, whom I shall mention, no doubt much to his embarrassment. Mr. James Radcliffe is well known to many hon. Members as an example of what, through secondment from the Foreign Office, it is possible for an international parliamentary organisation to achieve in a partnership between Government and Parliament.
I am aware of the efforts of others. I make no special claim that our mission can produce something dramatic, but the point must be fairly made that our group, because it mirrors the United Nations, has a broader spread than any other international parliamentary organisation. It has a proud history of foundation by a British and a French parliamentarian more than a century ago. It may be able to demonstrate, as many in the Chamber will agree, that parliamentarians can undertake international tasks.
I hope that it will be seen as an example that gives the lie to those who regard such activities as frivolous or part of the travel club syndrome. The nature of such international representations from countries that have no

obvious and direct linkage with the problems of the region shows how such problems can be considered and worked upon in the wider international parliamentary community.
Any mission such as this, which has the opportunity to see and encourage at first hand the staggering efforts of those working for relief in Bosnia, is to be welcomed. Having seen the work of our people as part of UNPROFOR in Zagreb, I am anxious that we should extend that work, especially to support the United Nations command headquarters in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
I hope that such a mission will command the general support of the House and of Her Majesty's Government. I recognise that I am raising a matter of which I have given my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister virtually no notice, but it is a small example of the way in which parliamentary diplomacy can supplement preventive diplomacy, as urged on us by the UN Secretary-General. I hope that our mission will be seen not only as a contribution to the work of the Select Committee and the estimates which are before us but as something on which we may build in years to come.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: I agree with what the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) said about the mission that the IPU is hoping to undertake. I wish it well, and I hope that it gets the co-operation that it needs from the Foreign Office. It is important that we have not just one-way traffic between Parliaments in the west and elsewhere—for example, the Balkans—but two-way traffic. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is next to impossible for the Members of the Bosnian Parliament in Sarajevo, a city under siege, to respond to invitations to visit other European countries. It is as important to break that aspect of the siege of Sarajevo—the spiritual siege of Sarajevo—as it is to break the material siege.
The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) spoke of the high hopes at the end of the cold war and of how those hopes have been disappointed. As he stressed, it is important not to overdo the gloom. The opportunity for a more proactive, more interventionist role in regional conflicts, provided by the end of the cold war, is still there. The end of the cold war did not mean the end of those regional conflicts and disputes and they are no less complicated or intractable.
However, one important dimension has been removed from them, and that is the fear that intervention could lead to the wider entanglement of the two rival super-powers. The removal of that dimension provides the international community with an important opportunity, which it has to grasp and of which it must take full advantage. Over the past couple of years, we have run up against various obstacles and difficulties with the mechanisms and procedures to try to deal with regional conflicts, principally the mechanisms of the United Nations.
Before I say anything about those difficulties, let me add that, in trying to be more active in responding with help to resolve regional conflicts, the outstanding principle that we must defend is that of non-aggression. We must maintain respect for internationally recognised frontiers. The words "internationally recognised" are perhaps the most important in that phrase. We must not distinguish between frontiers in terms of whether they are thought to be artificial or of recent establishment, that they might be seen


by some to be unfair, that they might divide communities or that they might lead people on one side of a border to wish that they were on the other.
We cannot bring those factors into play when we try to maintain the principle of respect for internationally recognised borders. One of the causes of our failure in the Balkans is that we tried to distinguish between borders and frontiers that we felt were more durable, more just, more correct and more defensible and those that we thought were more artificial. We cannot make those distinctions. If we try to do so, we shall quickly find ourselves on a slippery slope.
Not many borders in Europe, particularly in eastern Europe, would stand up to the kind of scrutiny and examination that some people have tried to use on the new borders in the Balkans. The key has to be that if the borders are recognised by the international community, they must be maintained by the international community. I fear that the fact that we have not maintained that principle in the Balkans has been a great blow to our hopes of the new world order.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Is my hon. Friend arguing that the situation in former Yugoslavia would have been resolved if people had taken a different attitude to the recognition of Croatia and Slovenia, or is he arguing—this is how I interpret his remarks—that it does not matter what the historic lines on maps are, we can have a process of almost permanent instability so long as some people somewhere think that they should have "self-determination" and that everybody else should recognise that? I was not entirely clear which road my hon. Friend was following.

Mr. Macdonald: It was neither, which shows that I was not getting the point across. I was trying to say that, whatever border is internationally recognised, that is the border which the international community should be defending with every means at its disposal. We should not distinguish between borders that may be internationally recognised but are difficult for us to defend and those that could be argued by some to be an artificial creation or a recent creation.
Some of those attributes may attach to all borders, but if we are to maintain international order the international community must be prepared to rigorously defend any borders that it has recognised as a legal border, no matter how recently brought into being. If the line has been recognised by the international community, the international community must defend it. If we fail to do that we will be on a slippery slope. We will end up making excuses about certain conflicts and certain kinds of aggression by putting forward the argument that the aggression does not matter so much because the border is recent, controversial or open to dispute.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Is it not more complicated than that? I accept the main thrust of the hon. Member's argument, but is there not another case? In Cyprus, for instance, the two sides fought themselves to a standstill, and the United Nations is quite properly monitoring the line along which they did so. That was not an internationally recognised border until the war caused it to be one.

Mr. Macdonald: The key point is that the international community still does not recognise that border. That is a line between two communities which was determined by aggression. The international community has rightly refused to recognise the line that has been created, and continues to insist that the original border of Cyprus, the original integrity of Cyprus—as recognised by the international community before the fighting—must continue to be the base point.

Mr. Rogers: I agree with the general thrust of my hon. Friend's argument, but I am not sure how we would put it into operation, for example, in the former Yugoslavia. When do we stop the clock? In 1945, one of the subscribers to the United Nations was the country called Yugoslavia. Is my hon. Friend now arguing that the function of the United Nations should have been to support the Government of Yugoslavia in maintaining their sovereign territory, or do we move the argument forward two or three years, or 20 or 30 years, until we get to a time when Yugoslavia is broken up, and say, "Well, those are now the boundaries that have to be defended, and the United Nations should acknowledge and support them"? I accept the general thrust of my hon. Friend's argument, but there are enormous difficulties in following it in such a simplistic way.

Mr. Macdonald: The question of internal borders is very difficult. While we all support the principle of self-determination of nations, communities or minorities within states in its broadest sense, we must be careful not to allow support for the principle of self-determination to become automatic support for the principle of secession. It is important that we try to maintain the integrity of nation states, which are the building blocks of the international community.
The constitutions of some nation states allow for various parts of those states to secede. Similarly, the international community may recognise the constitutions of those states as well as the federal constitutions of various parts of those states and their right to secede. It could be argued that, from 1974 onwards, the republics within Yugoslavia had a constitutional right to secede. I agree that we must be careful not to allow our respect and support for minority rights and for the principle of self-determination of communities to lead to an interminable fracturing of existing states. That is a danger which we must guard against.
My hon. Friend is also right that the principle I am putting forward is, in many ways, a simplifying principle. Unless we try to put forward such a simplifying principle, any hope of maintaining a consistent line and policy when we face the challenges that will come from eastern Europe and elsewhere during the rest of the decade will disappear. It will then be difficult to maintain the kind of stability and order that we seek. If we allow disputes to arise, and the resolution of them by aggression to succeed, many borders in eastern Europe could be disputed. That is unfortunately what we have done in the former Yugoslavia.
As to the United Nations, the problems that we have seen over the past couple of years have diminished our original optimism. Those problems can be divided into three categories: lack of material resources for the United Nations, the problem of its internal organisation when it


comes to peacekeeping, and a certain lack of will when faced with various conflicts that we should try to do more about.
As to the material resources of the United Nations, there is no doubt that those available for peacekeeping have to be built up. A recent report of the United Nations revealed the startling statistics that its peacekeeping budget in 1991 was less than the combined budget of the New York fire and police departments. That was in a year when there were already several peackeeping operations in place around the world. There is no doubt that the budget is utterly inadequate for the tasks that the United Nations will be asked to perform during the rest of the decade.
The right hon. Member for Guildford raised the point about the United Nations Organisation. The United Nations lacks an independent intelligence gathering capacity and has difficulties with command and control of United Nations operations. Another great problem is the lack of co-ordination between forces that are unused to working with each other and have different levels of equipment and training.
I visited NATO with a group of colleagues earlier this year, and we were told by General Sir Richard Vincent, the chairman of the military committee, that, in deciding the number of troops he thought necessary for the implementation of the Vance-Owen proposals, he had to take into account all those various deficiencies in the United Nations organisation. Given those deficiencies, in order to do its job the United Nations has to deploy many more troops than would otherwise be necessary.
The important point about standby forces has already been made. We must look more and more to regional organisations to help to carry the load for the United Nations. We should be looking to regional organisations in Africa, Asia and Europe to share some of the burden. We in Europe have to take a very hard look at how we organise our forces, particularly in the European Community.
The European Union now has more than 2 million men under arms, yet it protests its absolute impotence and inability to act to sort out regional conflicts in Europe without massive help from the United States, particularly with ground troops. Such a position is unsustainable and the European Union must look towards integrating its forces, particularly in an era of diminished resources all round.
The third factor that has led to a decline in optimism about the abilities of the UN is the difficulty met in imposing political will, as has been obvious in the Balkans. I do not believe that it has been the failure to impose military will that has held western Governments back from intervening in the Balkans on a grand scale. My conversations with General Vincent and his predecessor, General Eide, have convinced me that a lack of political will has been the key to the failure of the West to intervene more aggressively in the Balkans.
Western Governments had hoped that the conflict in the Balkans could be contained, that the war in Bosnia could be limited to Bosnia and that it would eventually burn itself out. That hope will be dashed in months and years to come. Our failure to intervene at an earlier stage in that conflict, perhaps during the bombardment of Dubrovnik, means that when we do eventually intervene with military forces—I am sure that that will be necessary—the operation will be far more painful than it would have been had we intervened earlier.
Even those who disagree with me about the need for military intervention in the Balkans must agree about the importance of maintaining the flow of humanitarian aid to the region. A couple of colleagues and I visited Sarajevo in October and we saw the privations caused by the siege. The aid that is getting through is nothing like enough to relieve the population.
The figures may sound impressive: 6,000 flights delivering 60,000 tonnes of aid by air to Sarajevo in two years. That should be compared, however, with the 40,000 tonnes of aid that was delivered in one month by air to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf crisis. More tellingly, it should be compared with the 200,000 flights that delivered more than 2 million tonnes of aid to Berlin in 1949—a city which suffered a shorter siege than that of Sarajevo. Such comparisons raise a giant question mark about the serious intent of western Governments' aid efforts in Sarajevo and elsewhere in Bosnia.
I have raised this matter with the Foreign Secretary. The Minister of State has written to me to explain that an attempt will be made to increase the tempo of the airlifts to Sarajevo. He stressed the difficulties that have been encountered because there is only one flight path in to and out of Sarajevo and because no night flying is allowed due to the supposed greater dangers that such an operation poses. He argued that that one flight path meant that planes were given a 30-minute time slot to land and take off from Sarajevo.
Such excuses are inadequate. I do not see why it is not possible to establish more than one flight path and to organise night flights to deliver aid. I do not know why each plane needs a 30-minutes time slot when planes land at Heathrow every couple of minutes and planes landed every minute and a half during the Berlin airlift. Those excuses are not credible and I fear that western Governments' seriousness of intent in delivering humanitarian aid is no greater than their seriousness of intent in maintaining international law and the principles previously enunciated in the Balkans.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) said, the Select Committee on Defence published a report on the United Kingdom's peacekeeping and intervention forces on 9 June and the Government replied on 3 November. I should like to take this opportunity to refer briefly to our report and to draw to the attention of the House a couple of our specific proposals.
It is a pleasure to agree entirely with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) about the need to support the role of the United Nations. It is the only international body that can possibly give legitimacy to the peacekeeping operations which various countries are attempting around the world. If we allow the United Nations to fail, we will go down the route that we followed in the 1930s with the League of Nations and, in the end, the world will once again descend into a massive conflict and an era of instability. The United Nations must be supported and Great Britain has a particularly useful role to play in providing our share of that support.
It also gives me great pleasure to agree with the Ministry of Defence—I do not always find myself able to do that, nor does the Select Committee on Defence—about the wisdom of not attempting to earmark specific forces for


use in the United Nations arena. Were we to do so, we would fall into the trap of trying to anticipate the unanticipatable and provide forces for something that might never occur.
It is important to train specifically the forces that will be used in United Nations peacekeeping in certain areas. I welcome what the Government said of that requirement in their reply on 3 November to the Select Committee's report:
It may be necessary to refine some skills (for example, environmental hygiene, first aid and mine awareness) and to teach some new skills (such as mediation, conciliation and integration with non-governmental agencies) which would not normally be required for military operations. In this context, it may be helpful to think of peacekeeping as a separate environment (in the same way as jungle, mountain or Arctic operations) for which trained forces need specific familiarisation training in order to be as effective as possible.
That is a good analysis of the need to train our forces to enable them to play a full part in peacekeeping. Our experience in Northern Ireland makes us the world leader in providing that kind of training and producing the forces that are capable of fulfilling that role.
I also welcome the fact that the Government affirmed in paragraph 39 of their reply that employment in peacekeeping operations should enjoy a high status and stated:
We are keen to deploy high quality personnel to such 36appointments".
I am still concerned, however, about the way in which United Nations operations are funded. We are in great muddle about providing the funding for the forces that we use in various peacekeeping roles. Because of our current deployment in Bosnia, for example, the Ministry of Defence is left with a big bill for enforcing the no-fly zone with the Jaguars and the Ark Royal group in the Adriatic. That bill is met from the defence budget.
I understand that the Ministry of Defence reclaims UNPROFOR costs—"additional" ones only, I believe—from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which, in turn, needs extra money from the Treasury to meet that claim. We all pray that, in due course, the United Nations will reimburse us, but that seems highly unlikely to me. The flow of money takes an extremely circuitous route and the Select Committee recommended:
Additional financial provision should be made available to the Ministry of Defence specifically for peacekeeping expenses in the next public expenditure survey.
It was not.
The Government reply to the Defence Committee stated:
The relevant interdepartmental financial arrangements have existed for some years, and are clear and well-understood by the Departments concerned.
They may be understood by the Departments concerned, but I do not think that the logic behind them was understood by anyone else. The Select Committee on Defence, with, I hope, the support of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, would like that to be reviewed. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who chairs the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, will join that request.
I cannot believe that it is in the interests of the Foreign Office occasionally to find sums levied through it by the Ministry of Defence. For example, in Cyprus, some of the money that is claimed from the Foreign Office by the

Ministry of Defence errs on the side of over-generosity. The cost of the Ferret squadron that was with the United Nations forces in Cyprus was charged through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at £4.3 million a year. Fond as I am of asking the Ministry of Defence for more money, I find that sum hard to justify in those circumstances. I hope that we shall find a more sensible way to fund our United Nations requirements and to stop the circuitous route by which it is done.
I am conscious of the fact that many of my hon. Friends want to speak, so I shall briefly consider two specific areas where there are United Nations peacekeeping forces at the moment—Cyprus and Bosnia. The Select Committee on Defence visited Cyprus in May and found the Canadian forces on the point of withdrawing, as were the Danes. At that time, Britain was dramatically reducing its contributions and no substitution had been found for the Danes. The thin red line between the Turkish and Greek sectors was looking extraordinarily thin. I am glad to be able to say that an Argentine contingent replaced the Denmark troops. None the less, there is a sad lack of forces between the two communities in Cyprus.

Mr. Lester: Is not one aspect that concerns people on the subject of putting troops into Cyprus the fact that it has taken an inordinately long time to reach any solution? I met Canadian officers who had begun as lieutenants and have now returned as brigadiers because they were there for so long and there is still no further move to settle the problem.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I accept my hon. Friend's point. It has taken a long time to find a solution. I am not sure what the solution is or whether my hon. Friend would care to offer one. I am certain that the conclusion that should not be reached is one in which the Greeks and the Turks begin fighting each other in Cyprus.
When we returned, we expressed our concern that the Ferret scout car squadron, which was with the United Nations forces, was being withdrawn and was not replaced at that time by any other armour. The reconnaissance squadron was withdrawn from the sovereign base area and, at the same time, the armour that was hitherto held by the 34 Squadron of the RAF regiment was being replaced by Landrovers.
At that time, the only armour left to any of the British forces in Cyprus were the Ferret scout cars, which the commander had the presence of mind to transfer from the armoured squadron to the infantry regiment and to train some of the infantry to drive. There was at least some armoured cover in the event of trouble. There has been a proposal, although it has not been dated or allocated numbers, to send some Saxons out to the sovereign base areas.
When we made our criticisms, the Ministry of Defence said:
The security situation is much more settled and, put simply, UNFICYP has less to do than in the past".
That statement must have been drafted, if not published, before the Greek elections, because that is certainly not the case. From all the news that I have received from that part of the world, it seems that the new Greek Administration are likely to be much more aggressive in their support for the militants in the Greek Cypriot community than their predecessors. I am seriously concerned that if the United Nations showed any sign of weakness in its determination to keep those communities apart, we might find ourselves again facing serious problems.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is not the role of the United Nations in Cyprus more than a question of keeping the two communities apart? Is not its equally important function to be able to introduce some confidence-building measures? Is not that what the United Nations is doing at the moment—trying to open up Nicosia airport and use the military zones as a point of contact for the two communities? It is not just a question of keeping the two sides apart; we need to get them together.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I am not trying to deal with the issue in that way. I am concentrating on the military consequences of United Nations participation in the military arena and I am presenting the report of the Defence Select Committee. In the broader sense, we must seek through different negotiations to reach the stage—which we have not yet reached—when United Nations forces become unnecessary. That is a separate and more important facet of the problem in Cyprus.
I am also concerned that the Cyprus problem must not be allowed to become a catalyst, by which the two eastern members of NATO—Turkey and Greece—find themselves in military conflict. That would have an extraordinary wide effect on the whole NATO security position and on the security of the eastern end of the Mediterranean. We must keep sufficient United Nations forces there until diplomatic negotiations succeed, to ensure that there is not a flaring up of military or generally aggressive antagonism between the two Cypriot communities.
There seem to be two clear objectives for the United Nations to follow in Bosnia—to limit the conflict so that it does not spread to Macedonia, Kosovo and through the eastern Mediterranean countries and to find a solution whereby Bosnia can be divided in a way that is equitable, sustainable and acceptable to all three communities in that devastated country.
I visited Bosnia in March and I have never seen such a desolate and inhuman place. All natural human feelings seem to have disappeared. I read a letter from a serving soldier in which he described it as being like the kingdom of Mordor—all sense of justice, humanity or religion seems to have been thrown out the window and all three sides are behaving with unacceptable bestiality towards each other.
In those circumstances, it is extremely hard to see how a solution such as the one that I have outlined as necessary can be found, but I wish Lord Owen and his team every success in their endeavours. Sooner or later, the participants must become war-weary and reach some kind of arrangement so that the conflict can be brought to an end. When that occurs, I have no doubt that the United Nations must move in and enforce the newly agreed areas and divisions so that the position can be stabilised and all three communities learn to live in peace—if not together, at least next to each other.
In the meantime, I believe, as does the Committee, that the humanitarian role that our troops perform magnificently cannot go on indenfinitely. The troops in Vitez are surrounded by forces that are likely to become more directly hostile to the United Nation forces in their midst. There must be a clear time limit within which we shall have to withdraw troops if no solution can be found along the lines that I have suggested. I do not believe that we can keep our humanitarian forces in place in Bosnia for much longer. How long that will be is a matter for Her Majesty's

Government, but I should be reluctant to accept a decision to keep our forces there through another winter. However, I would be equally unlikely to wish to remove them now, as they still fulfil a useful humanitarian role this winter.
Those are the two major United Nations commitments in which our troops are involved, and there are few others, which is one reason why I do not especially look forward to the defence review. The defence requirements are clear and unarguable. The requirements are that we look after Northern Ireland, that we look after our interests in Germany and NATO and that we produce troops for the United Nations when we are requested to do so and when it is within our capability and in our interests to comply.
We currently have few other commitments. Our commitments in Cambodia will soon be finished. We pulled out of Sinai a year ago. In their reply to the Defence Select Committee report, the Government announced that they had decided to withdraw our 15 officers from MINURSO, the United Nations mission charged with facilitating a referendum in the western Sahara. I believe that it is right that they have done so. We sent only two Hercules to Somalia. In retrospect, we might have been better advised to play a slightly bigger role. Our advice might have been helpful in obtaining a more precise definition of the targets in that area.
We have no commitments other than those that I have outlined. However, there is no doubt that we shall have others. The way international affairs are going, I am sure that the United Nations will ask us to participate in missions—if nowhere else, certainly in Bosnia once peace is declared. We shall be asked to help enforce the peace agreement. The United Kingdom would be requested to send at least a brigade and probably substantially more. We would find it almost impossible to comply with that request, certainly for any length of time, without seriously disrupting our other defence commitments.
I welcome the Government's statement in paragraph 27 of their reply to our report setting out the terms on which they would be prepared to give further support to the United Nations. They said:
Requests to participate will continue to be considered case by case in the light of other commitments, available resources and foreign policy objectives. Specific factors taken into account include the likelihood of the operation achieving its stated aim, whether it can be expected to contribute to a lasting political settlement, and whether it calls for capabilities that British forces are especially well able to provide, and whether the objectives and mandate proposed for the peacekeeping force are clear and precise.
I am glad that I did not draft that sentence. Its grammatical weakness speaks for itself. I hope that the requirements for the peacekeeping force will be clearer and more precise. The Government continued:
The cost and likely duration of the mission are also important considerations … We can confirm that full consideration is also given to the scarcity of particular assets, and the disproportionate impact of supporting a number of small operations.
Those criteria are well expressed. They are the ones that the Government should follow.
My anxiety is that, even in the case of Bosnia, which is fairly predictable, we could not fulfil the requirement that we are likely to be asked to fulfil without impacting badly on our other commitments. I am also worried that the number of small conflicts to which we are asked to send some peacekeeping forces disrupts badly our ability to train our armed forces for their primary role, which is to defend us in time of war. It is almost impossible to get together a brigade, let alone a division or any larger unit,


to train artillery, infantry and armour together because of the number of commitments which each of those sectors is called on to fulfil in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
The proposal of the Defence Select Committee, which I endorse, is that there should be an increment in our armed forces sufficient to match the likely overall requirement of United Nations peacekeeping, just as we have an increment for leave, for training abroad and for the times when a soldier is away from his unit for various duties. We should do exactly the same thing on a larger scale for United Nations commitments so that although we do not earmark soldiers, sailors or airmen for United Nations peacekeeping activities, at least we can be confident that we have the number to do so whenever necessary without disrupting all our other military commitments.

Mr. George Galloway: I am not sure on what basis the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) opened the debate, but it is appropriate in any case that I should apologise to him and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for missing much of his opening speech. I was unavoidably detained.
Although the Minister of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), has temporarily left his place, I should like to convey through him to the Foreign Office staff, with whom many of us in the House have regular contact, my personal gratitude for the courtesy and efficiency with which they always deal with requests for information and assistance such as I have had cause to make of late. It is worth making the point to the House and to the public that we employ some first-class people in the Foreign Office in embassies around the world and in the offices in Whitehall. I wished to grab a moment to make that clear.
The main burden of my remarks relate to the peacekeeping operation which the United Nations are mounting with British support and British funds in, over and around Iraq. From my personal experience, we are creating devastation in and around that area and calling it peacekeeping. Some aspects of that peacekeeping greatly worry me and, increasingly, civilised opinion around the world.
I had cause at the weekend to call the office of the Minister of State to make inquiries, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), with whom I spoke several times at the weekend. The House will be glad to know that he is recuperating from his operation and hopes to be with us again in February. None the less, he is taking a close interest in parliamentary affairs from his sickbed.
He and I were both concerned at the weekend by reports that appeared in The Guardian on Saturday. On subsequent investigation, it turned out that the reports flowed from an item that was gazetted by the Government in the London Gazette on Friday—that the United Kingdom Government had sequestered £186,000 from funds which belong to Iraq and are frozen in this country. The Government have transferred those funds to the United Nations "in support"—I think that that was the phrase—of UN efforts.
Of course, it depends on the purposes for which the funds are to be earmarked whether I and others like me think that the sequestration is a good thing. I should like to

probe the Government as part of a discussion of the general issue. It is strange to many of us that the item should have been gazetted on Friday and therefore presumably sent for publication before then, at the very time when the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was in Iraq accomplishing the splendid achievement of convincing the Iraqi authorities to free the three British prisoners held in Baghdad who were subject to inordinately long and savage sentences for relatively minor transgressions of Iraqi law.
At the very time when we were throwing hats up for the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, the Government decided to purloin—it will be interesting to hear the Minister's description of the transfer if it was not purloining—£186,000 of Iraqi assets. At the same time, Iraqi citizens are suffering massively from the impact of the economic embargo.
The United Nations Security Council resolutions allow the sequestration of Iraqi frozen assets, but it is my understanding that they must be assets flowing from the proceeds of the sale of Iraqi petroleum or petroleum products paid for by or on behalf of the purchaser on or after 6 August 1990.
My information is that almost none of the funds that are being frozen and are available for sequestration by the Government fall into that category. Some of us are therefore suspicious that the funds were not covered by the UN resolution and we should be grateful for some elaboration. That seems to beg some questions.
First, is the money being transferred from London to New York to assist in the humanitarian relief of ordinary Iraqi citizens who have never voted for Saddam Hussein, have never had a general election or any opportunity to remove his Government from office and yet are suffering enormous deprivation as a result of the United Nations peacekeeping operation or, as I have argued, the UN devastation and continued humiliation of the state of Iraq?
The second question, which flows from the first, is that if money had been transferred for humanitarian purposes, has a deal been done in New York by Her Majesty's Government with the Iraqi Government, whereby the money was transferred to New York in exchange for those British prisoners? If there has been a deal, we should know about it and we should know what other deals may be in the pipeline. It goes without saying that £186,000 is a derisory sum in any case. I am not sure what United Nations efforts can be supported by the transfer of such a small sum; it seems to me that it would not even pay the telephone bills of the United Nations peacekeeping operation in the area.

Mr. Rogers: I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning that important issue. He has prodded my memory. Some time ago, I led the Opposition side on a committee that dealt with compensation for victims of the Iraq war. A couple of days ago, I read that the first category of people who should have received compensation from the fund set up by the United Nations—people who had suffered injury or the loss of a husband or wife—had not yet received any. I hope that before he sits down my hon. Friend will press the Minister on what the Government are doing about compensating those victims. I agree with my hon. Friend about the suffering of the Iraqi people, which he described so cogently.

Mr. Galloway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that the Minister has heard him, is writing down the question and is doubtless formulating an answer.
The question on which I am seeking to press the Government remains: what is the money and has it been transferred for humanitarian purposes in Iraq or, to use the phrase in the London Gazette, has it been transferred to "support" United Nations operations of other kinds? For example, has it been transferred to support the military operations that are taking place around the Iraqi borders and in and over Iraqi territory? If that were the case, it was a needlessly provocative act to have embarked upon on the same day that a former British Prime Minister was in Baghdad pleading for the release of British citizens, quite apart from being wrong in principal because the Iraqi people have suffered more than enough already. Has the money been transferred for humanitarian purposes? That is what we want the Government to tell us.
I must press upon the Government the case that the devastation that we call peacekeeping, against and around Iraq, has already gone far enough. The Government ought to seize the opportunity that undoubtedly exists as the international ice, which has packed in and around Iraq during the four and a half years since the Gulf war, begins to crack.
When the hotels in Baghdad are full of Italian, French, German and Spanish business people; when the oil price has tumbled to about $13 a barrel in anticipation of the flow of Iraqi oil products to the markets; when there is a visibly increased and improved tempo in the United Nations, the Security Council and sanctions committee; and when the meetings between Tariq Aziz and Ralph Exus were apparently so successful that we might at last begin to see a light at the end of the tunnel, in the hostilities between the international community and the Iraqi Government, we ought to be seizing the opportunity to bring some relief to the people of Iraq. That would be a real measure of peacekeeping, rather than the devastation that we are calling peacekeeping.
As the Minister of State knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and I visited Iraq in May. In a couple of weeks, I am going with Ahmed Ben Bella, the former Algerian leader, Mr. Ramsey Clark the former United States Attorney-General, and Members of Parliament from France, Greece and elsewhere on a mission to study further the devastating impact that the war, its aftermath and the economic embargo and blockade are having on the people of Iraq.
It has been said in the House before, but it bears repeating when we are discussing what type of peace is being kept in the Gulf today, that the malnutrition and sickness that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and I witnessed with our own eyes would have moved a person with stone for a heart, so terrible were the conditions. We visited hospitals where there was no medicine and no spare parts for the medical equipment. There was no electricity for operations and women were having caesarian sections without anaesthetic because none was available. The garbage lay uncollected in the streets—tonnes and tonnes of rubbish mounting up on every corner because the spare parts for vehicles to collect it do not exist and nor do incineration facilities.
The great waterways of the Tigris and Euphrates are unprotected and unprotectable by the authorities. They are teeming with water-borne diseases, which make children, old people and others more and more sick when there is no

medicine or equipment with which to treat them. The Minister knows about the tremendous increase in marasmus, kwashiorkor and malnutrition of all kinds, as well as in polio and cholera, which is a result of the poisoned water that Iraqis in urban and rural communities have to use.
Iraq is a developed country which is being de-developed by the United Nations with our participation, using our funds to support the United Nations effort. It is being de-developed by the very Governments and countries who used to be so friendly with Iraq and its Government. The Conservative Members in the House this evening are a fairly civilised bunch, but none has sought to argue that case. For the record, I am a founder member of the campaign against oppression and for democratic rights in Iraq. I was marching, petitioning and picketing for democracy and against dictatorship there long before this and other Governments were converted to opposition to the regime in Baghdad. I stand in second place to no one in my opposition to the bestialities of that regime.
My argument is that the peace that we are keeping is not affecting the regime, which is stronger than it was four years ago. The peace that we are keeping is starving the ordinary people of Iraq, who have no means of defending themselves from our peacekeeping and no means of overthrowing their Government. Indeed, in their emaciated, depressed, hungry and sick state, they are much less able to overthrow their Government than they would be if the embargo that we call "peacekeeping" did not exist.

Dr. Robert Spink: Is not the point that, if the evil Iraqi regime were to get its hands on more resources, it would use them not to soften the circumstances of its people but further to oppress its people?

Mr. Galloway: It is perfectly possible for us, within the United Nations, to develop an agreement with Iraq whereby assets could be transferred—as that block of £186,000 was unfrozen and transferred to New York on Friday—with specific agreements about the purpose for which that money should be spent. It is perfectly within our power, and I assure hon. Members that the Iraqi Government would grab such an opportunity with both hands. Iraqi assets held in London could be spent with British firms on baby milk compounds, on medical, X-ray and anaesthetic equipment and on foodstuffs. We could supervise the purchase of those products here in Britain from British firms and transfer them for distribution, which could be checked in association with the Iraqi Government, to those who need it on the ground.
The Minister of State knows that the tempo that I have described is increasing and changing. Something is in the wind vis-a-vis the international community and Iraq. Why do we not unfreeze several million pounds, as we unfroze the £186,000 on Friday, and specify that they can be spent with British companies on those vitally needed peaceful products that will keep alive children, sick people and old people who are currently dying for the want of them?
I have detained the House for long enough. As well as answering my specific points about the £186,000, I implore the Minister, in the light of these new conditions and circumstances, to look at the matter again and encourage the United Nations also to do so.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) by talking in detail about Iraq, but I am sure that the House has listened with great attention to what he said. May I simply say that, if there is a prime responsibility for the terrible suffering in that country, it lies with Saddam Hussein. It is important that we should all recognise that.
It is also important to recognise that if any of the atrocious conditions which the hon. Gentleman so graphically and movingly described are to be laid at the door of the United Nations, it is because we have not yet perfected—far from it—the art of peacekeeping and peacemaking. In the years ahead, we must consider how far the international community can tolerate the existence of a dictator like Saddam Hussein when it must go to war against him. To my mind, our greatest mistake two years ago, when the troops were about to go on the road to Baghdad, was not to have delivered an ultimatum for that man to get out in 48 hours, failing which we would continue.
I shall not pursue that argument at this stage because I wish to talk briefly about another issue that has been discussed by a number of colleagues on both sides of the House—the issue of Bosnia. That, too, brings into sharp focus the essence of peacemaking and peacekeeping.
It is now nearly two years since the international community recognised the existence of Bosnia as a sovereign state. One can argue about whether that was wise or foolish, but the fact remains that we did it. Bosnia was granted a seat at the United Nations and its Government, which, I remind the House, is multi-ethnic, was recognised, and is still recognised. Within Sarajevo today—difficult as it might be to believe—the Speaker of the Bosnian Parliament is Serb, while within the Bosnian Government there are Serbs, Croats and Muslims who still cling to the ideal of a multi-ethnic state. Theirs is the Government which the international community recognises.
It would be outside the terms and remit of this debate to discuss arms embargoes and armed intervention. We have all discussed those issues in the past months and the House is fairly well aware of my views. However, I shall not pursue those arguments today, save to say that we must always ask how morally defensible it is, on the one hand, not go to to the aid of a beleaguered or attacked state and, on the other, not to give it the means to defend itself. We have not resolved that moral dilemma.
Whatever one may think or say about what could have or should have been done—more than two years ago I wanted tough deterrent action to be taken when Dubrovnik, a world heritage site, was bombarded—we cannot escape the fact that, as an international community in the United Nations, as a European Community and as NATO, we have all failed. The sign of our failure—the 2 million-plus refugees in the centre of Europe; 200,000 or thereabouts killed, most of them civilians; the suffering and carnage; and the raping and pillage— beggars belief. That it should have happened less than 50 years after the end of the second world war to end all wars in our continent of Europe is a lasting disgrace and a shame on us all. That is not to impugn the sincerity or motives of those in the British or any other Government who as roundly condemn and deeply deplore all that as I do.
However, today we are discussing peacekeeping and the United Nations. The credibility of the international community is at stake if that sort of thing can happen within our continent of Europe in 1993. We have only to look for a moment at the result of the Russian election today to realise just how unstable our continent is and how many more Bosnias are just waiting to happen. I could be rebuked for omitting to mention some of those places, such as Georgia and Azerbaijan, where they are already happening. If we cannot, within the next few months —the time scale is that short—create a more credible and effective peacekeeping operation within the United Nations, the portents are dire indeed.
In a different context, hon. Members have referred today to Cyprus and the terrible problem that will remain until the Cyprus question is resolved, which could mean Greeks and Turks—two NATO allies—fighting each other. I remind the House that the same could happen in the Balkans if the shameful situation in Bosnia is not contained and we have war in Macedonia or Kosovo. If the Balkans go up in flames and Bulgaria is drawn in, Albania will be drawn in, and it is almost inevitable that Greece and Turkey will be drawn in on opposite sides. The stakes are as high as any that we have had to play for this century. How can we have a more effective United Nations peacekeeping operation?
In asking that question, I make absolutely no criticism of the leadership, devotion or bravery of United Nations troops in general or of British troops in particular. They have acquitted themselves with outstanding distinction. However, they have been carrying out an operation with their hands tied. Although resolutions have been passed in the United Nations that would have allowed them to take deterrent action against Serbia, and against Serbs within Bosnia, those actions have not been taken.
The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who is not in his place at present, very bravely led a small group to Sarajevo. He told the House, as he told me privately, about watching the shells fired from Serbian placements into Sarajevo being counted by United Nations monitors, but nothing being done about them. We all know about the aid convoys that have been held up or turned back.
Only the other day a grotesque story was brought to my attention. The South African Muslim community had paid for a 130-bed mobile hospital, which currently is in dock just outside Bosnia. Despite all the forms that have been filled in and all the money that has been paid to provide private transport and so on, for four or five months it has not been allowed through to where it is needed. Only 10 days ago I sent a fax about that to Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and many others have also interceded, but still the hospital is not in Mostar, where it should be.
That sort of incident is an indictment of the effectiveness of the peacekeeping operation and can only be seen as such. The whole credibility of the United Nations is at stake. If we do not take action to ensure that the aid gets through, and if we do not have a massive airlift into Sarajevo this winter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) said, hundreds of thousands of people could die from starvation and privation. It looks as though the winter will be very severe in a country where it is perfectly normal for temperatures to be below zero for week after week.
I say to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister that it is desperately important that there is a more effective


United Nations peacemaking and peacekeeping operation. Because the stakes are so high and because the things that could go wrong are legion, I suggest that the permanent members of the Security Council, of whom we are one, take the lead. This is far too important a subject merely to be on the agenda, even if it is permanently on the agenda. We need a summit meeting of the five leaders—or certainly four; I accept that China is in a different category.
The Presidents of the United States, France and Russia and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom need to sit down together and talk about peacekeeping and peacemaking within the United Nations context. They are all both contributors and beneficiaries, actual and potential.
Those who say to me that Bosnia is not a British or a European interest are talking dangerous nonsense. Of course it is a British and a European interest that peace should be brought to our continent and that the conflagration should not spread and become totally out of control. Define anything that is more in our interests and I will listen with amazement.
During this period of good will, when parliaments will not be sitting, there is an opportunity—the beginning of a new year—for the big four to get together and to try to hammer out some guidelines for peace and to work out how they can be implemented. There is an opportunity to give a pledge on the standby arrangement for troops—referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) when he opened the debate so splendidly—that can be made available. It is a positive and realistic suggestion that I hope will be heeded because it is in the interests of all that it should be.
The Chairman of the Defence Select Committee is not in his place, but I point out that the Government must pause and think very carefully about our defence expenditure. France has already done that. We have a good record, of which we have every right to be proud, of defending the interests of this country. The Government have no need to feel ashamed. However, we have cut too near the bone, and if we cut into the bone we will inhibit the effectiveness of the very matter that is the subject of our debate today—an effective international peacekeeping and peacemaking operation upon which, without wishing to sound over-dramatic, the very future of this planet depends.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) spoke with feeling. I do not want to join those who make self-fulfilling prophecies, because the test of a prophet is whether his prophecy is fulfilled. However, the hon. Gentleman has underlined some important points and in particular has emphasised the necessity for clear thinking at this time. I wonder whether within two months the United Nations will have a programme in hand to guide us in future. Like the hon. Gentleman, I think that in that programme a clear objective is required on the role of peacekeeping and, above all at this time, the role of peacemaking and intervention.
I must tell the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that I am not convinced that his illustration of Northern Ireland was good guidance on how the United Nations could intervene. It is not a matter of occasional claims of lapses in human rights or alleged human rights; it is a pattern of procedure where there are clear abuses of human rights. I was interested recently to discover that in the

United States, the Irish green lobby said that the Brits were imprisoning Irish men in hell holes of concentration camps—yet when John Joe O'Docherty was extradited to the United Kingdom to serve his sentence and was asked by an American reporter what the prisons in Northern Ireland were like compared with those in the United States, he said that they were better because we care for our prisoners.

Mr. Rogers: I certainly did not use Northern Ireland as an example of when or how the United Nations should intervene. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said that the convention on human rights should be adopted and could be a plan for the United Nations to act on. I said that some people might want to invoke the convention as an argument for United Nations inteference in the affairs of Northern Ireland.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I am glad that I gave the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to clarify the position. However, the record will show that the impression given was somewhat different. I understand his problem with reading financial statements and accounts. I have long since discovered that accountants are in a cabal of mysticism, concealing rather than revealing. We must probe to get answers at that level.
We are all in debt to the right hon. Member for Guildford because of the way in which he guided our thinking with his lucid introduction of the Select Committee's report. I echo his tribute to the work of Britain's permament representatives in New York, including Sir David Hannay and his staff. I was a member of a recent parliamentary delegation to the United Nations that praised Jan Eliason. However, thereafter he resigned. That was a loss to the United Nations and I regret whatever was the cause of that happening. All members of our cross-party delegation were most impressed by the calibre of Mr. Eliason.
Global security has become a problem. In that context, Britain is a medium-sized power with a developed sense of global responsibility. I would not want us to opt out of that responsibility but I believe that we must meet it realistically. The Government say that the United Kingdom recognises that the requirement for varied peacekeeping and intervention forces is likely to grow, yet our forces are being reduced under "Options for Change" and the cost of equipment is rising.
I join the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee in pleading, as others have today, for a re-examination of United Kingdom forces. They are able to do the job required, whereas those of other countries cannot—particularly those relying on conscripted personnel with little experience of serving overseas or of facing danger. Most British service personnel have served abroad and confronted danger, and they expect to do so again.
The hon. Member for Rhondda, I believe, referred to Mogadishu. I share his views, because the reaction of British troops and of the population of Northern Ireland when they saw the despicable treatment of two of our soldiers at Casement park contrasts starkly with the reaction of the American military and American people when they saw such events in Mogadishu. That is why I believe that our forces are the best equipped in the world to deal with that situation. They have 20 years' service there. Despite the pressures on them, the number of allegations against them that merit being pursued can be counted on the 20 digits that the average man has.

Mr. Rogers: If I may correct the record, the reference to pictures of American corpses serving to bring home to the American people the situation in Somalia was made by the right hon. Member for Guildford.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I am grateful. I thought that I had identified the wrong speaker.
The scope for non-military peacekeeping and intervention is considerable. In that context, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration need urgently to re-examine their organisation, numbers and priorities. I doubt, however, that non-governmental organisations would be doing a service to the United Nations if they were to take money earmarked for the UN budget. Certainly the UN would not want that to happen.
We may pray that British forces will not be asked soon to take part in any large-scale amphibious peacekeeping or peacemaking operations, because we are still awaiting the new landing platform helicopter, which is not due for delivery until 1998. For the next five years, British amphibious capability will be threadbare—with potentially serious implications for United Kingdom peacekeeping and intervention forces.
As to funding, United Nations member countries seem ready to will the end but not the means. More and more responsibility is placed on countries such as the United Kingdom that have played their part. It is regrettable that while the United States benefits from the seat of the UN being in New York, it has not paid its way. I understand that the UN could be bankrupt by the end of December as it awaits funds from Washington delayed by procedural problems. Member countries must face reality and pay their dues up front instead of being in arrears. I am not speaking specifically of CIS countries, which have many problems—but they are among the laggards, in common with Japan. There is a great need for common agreement on how UN operations will be funded.
Reference was made to intelligencef gathering. Another major problem is operation and control. There is some evidence that UN headquarters in New York are locked at weekends. Is there a system for controlling operations then? We believe in democratic control of our forces. We acknowledge that they must act according to what is happening on the ground, but even then there should always be feedback to political control. In the absence of UN control, is NATO command and control used? Many countries are unhappy about that organisation's possible involvement. There is a problem with command and control, and with the way in which international contingents communicate.
If we are to be involved in peacekeeping and intervention, we must maintain a mix and balance of forces. The United Nations must properly finance its operations, and its interventions must have a clear objective and a set of operating principles. Finally, there must be an effective command, control and communcations system. If we are to participate, we should stress that other nations must be prepared not only to make decisions that involve us but to put their money and forces where their mouths are.

Sir Jim Spicer: We owe a great debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and to my hon. Friend

the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee for their contributions to this debate and for the way in which, over the past two or three years, they have led their Committees with such skill and dedication.
This country has a proud record of working in support of the United Nations—Korea in the 1950s, Cyprus in the 1960s and 1970s, almost anywhere in Africa in the 1980s and 1990s, and Kuwait and Bosnia in the 1990. No other country has a record to equal our own.
The remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) were most disturbing, because he clearly pointed to the problems that the United Nations will face in the months and years ahead, in part due to the changing attitude of the United States towards its involvement in peacekeeping world wide. That is the main problem that we have to face. While we cannot say it was an easy ride from 1945 until 1988, it was relatively so. During that period, the superpowers were in a position to keep control of events. Otherwise, a conflagration would have followed, as surely as night follows day.
We now have the collapse of one superpower, and the other seemingly prepared to go back on its natuaraal role and not become too involved. That is due to a sad situation in Somalia, as a result of which the United States has now said it will withdraw from Somalia on 31 March, no matter what happens.
The future is not bright. We shall have to operate again, hopefully in support of the UN. However, does the UN have the will to perform the duties and functions which can only be performed by the UN? If not, we are in desperate trouble. One need look no further than the borders of the old Sovier Union, and to places such as Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan. We can see what might happen in the future if we are not careful and if we are not prepared to intervene as and when it is necessary.
In that context, I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of State whether those newly emerging states are seen by the UN to be truly independenet. Are they also seen by the Foreign Office to be truly independenet or are they seen to be within the sphere of influence of the old Sovier Union? It seems to me that, while we may say that they are independent states and while we may stand up for them in the UN, what is happening on the ground tells a quite different story.
It is quite right that, because we are talking mainly about Europe, we should discuss Bosnia at length. Most hon. Members have mentioned Bosnia, which has been the focal point of the debate. I will mention the situation in Azerbaijan. There are 7 million Azerbaijanis—1 million of those poor, unfortunate people are now refugees. They are living in squalor in tented camps and in conditions which, I would guess, are at least as bad as those which pertain in Bosnia and throughout other parts of former Yugoslavia.
What do we, or the British public, know of the situation in Azerbaijan? We know little because the media do not focus on events in Azerbaijan. They focus on Bosnia, so the public do not know about Azerbaijan. Twenty per cent. of the territory of Azerbaijan is occupied by Armenia. The United Kingdom is one of the few countries to have made strong representations in the United Nations about that intolerable situation. I understand that the United Nations has passed the conduct of affairs to the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, and the CSCE has visited the area.
There is a United Nations representative in Baku. The poor chap is virtually alone and has minimal back-up. The


CSCE goes to Nagorno-Karabakh about once a quarter with a committee, and it then reports to the United Nations that the situation is intolerable. We say that we respect the territory and the rights of the Azerbaijani people to their own territory and that we stand by that, but nothing happens. Those 1 million people will remain in tents in the refugee camps in conditions at least as bad as, if not many times worse than, in Bosnia.
What is happening is the first turn of the screw. The Russians have "switched on" the Armenians during the past few months in pursuit of their own imperial interests. I do not want to labour the point, but Liberal Democrats are now in a strong position in Russia, and they do not in any way conform with the Liberal Democrats in this House. However, they are now a potent force and their declared aim is to re-establish the Russian empire by hook or by crook. They will be in total concert with the military—and Yeltsin owes the military—so where do we go from here?
What are we prepared to do if the Russians make up their minds to go back into Azerbaijan and insist on stationing Russian forces there again, as they are quite likely to do? Those are not just my words, and that is not just what I personally have seen in Azerbaijan. An article in The Economist last week was full of pessimism, making it quite clear that the Russian intention is to draw the border states back into the fold. However, that will not happen without active intervention from other parties.
If there is a risk of a major flare-up, surely it is in that possible conflict area on the borders of Russia, Turkey and Iran. Who knows who could be drawn into that situation? Does the United Nations have the will to intervene there in a way in it is not prepared to intervene elsewhere? If not, do the United States, Britain and France have the will to resume their old role and to act—hopefully under the United Nations umbrella—as and when necessary to keep the peace in the world? It is in our interest and in the interest of many other western countries to do just that.
I will make two final points. First, I am delighted that stand-by forces have been mentioned. However, if we are to have them, the composition and the equipment of those forces must be absolutely right. We still do not have the "mix and match" right within our armed forces for the type of operations in which we are likely to be involved. Naturally, as a Member of Parliament representing a west country constituency, I have to say that it is high time that the EH101 and Apache helicopters were ordered to support those troops.
Secondly, the worst thing that we can do within the UN is to look around and take troops from any country, whatever their quality. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) will know only too well from his visits to Bosnia the horrifying stories about the indiscipline and the general state of disarray of some of those contingents. If the UN is to play a part in the world in the future—it will be a tough role to play—for goodness' sake let us make sure that only forces which are disciplined and capable and under a good command structure can take part in operations mounted on behalf of the UN and, most particularly, where our own troops are to be engaged.

Mr. Tony Banks: I thought that the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) was a little unkind to suggest that there was any similarity

between the Liberal Democrats of this country and the Russian Liberal Democrats. I have not seen the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) ordering his troops into tanks and rolling those tanks towards London. I suspect that we will not see that happening, either from Russia or from the west country.
I will share the time available to me with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes). I am grateful for a few minutes to speak, because I had the opportunity to visit the UN last week as a member of a small delegation from the Council of Europe. We met Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the President of the General Assembly, officials and ambassadors.
I came away with three distinct feelings. I was optimistic to know that the UN played such a central role in the world and that its position was assured in that respect. I was encouraged by the consensual feeling and general acceptance of the fact that the UN needed to be changed and that there was a willingness to achieve change so that it could deal with the greater challenges after the cold war. However, I was also pessimistic, because that requires resources and the complaint was that resources were simply inadequate.
There has been much talk here, as there was in New York, about the role of regional groupings. I suppose that we are fortunate in Europe to have a super-abundance of regional organisations like the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, NATO, the Western European Union, the Council of Europe, the European Union and the European Free Trade Association. However, there is a feeling that some of the activities of the European regional organisations are overlapping and duplicating the activities of the United Nations, and vice versa.
Given that there are finite resources, it is essential to achieve as much agreement as possible between the various organisations in respect of their functions, as that will save money on behalf of all the organisations. I understand that there is to be a Commissioner for Human Rights at the United Nations. The Council of Europe, with its responsibility for the Court of Human Rights, has great experience, expertise and knowledge of that subject. It would make sense to use the Council of Europe in terms of human rights in Europe.
There may not be a great demand for such expertise in western Europe at the moment — although I can think of one case, in which I do not want to become involved now, in respect of which human rights are undoubtedly being infringed. However, there is a great demand in eastern Europe for the services of those who can bring a greater appreciation of human rights. The Council of Europe could certainly do that.
The Council of Europe also has expertise in building democratic security. It can help to build democratic and political institutions in eastern Europe. It has a great deal of knowledge and it makes a great deal of sense that the United Nations should use that knowledge. It should not be duplicated.
I had an interesting discussion with the organiser of the United Nation's electoral assistance unit. The United Nations is facing a much greater demand for electoral assistance as countries move from totalitarianism to the democratic uplands. They need advice and assistance. Certain parts of eastern Europe require advice and assistance on how to set up political parties. That is not


something in which the United Nations can become involved, but national Parliaments and regional organisations can certainly become involved in it.
The need for greater co-ordination in the observance of elections clearly emerged from our discussions. The elections in Russia were almost a farce. It seemed that the voters in Russia would find their way to the ballot box impeded by large numbers of observers from a range of international organisations, national Parliaments and Churches.
It is essential that there should be co-ordination. People should know why they are going to observe elections and their efforts should be co-ordinated by umbrella organisations. We can obviously provide such assistance through regional organisations such as the CSCE and the Council of Europe. If I had turned up to cast my vote in Moscow and had found the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) blocking my way and acting as an undertaker, that would have caused me wry amusement. I am jolly glad that it was exceedingly cold for him.
With regard to peacekeeping, clearly the United Nations has too many problems to deal with at the moment. It is involved in 23 situations. Many hon. Members have said that we hear a lot about Bosnia, Haiti and Somalia because of media attention. However, there are many areas about which we are receiving no information. Thousands of people are being killed in Angola. The whole of the south, including large parts of Africa, is largely being ignored in this post-cold war situation. That must be regretted.
Media attention also places pressure on the United Nations to solve problems immediately. That cannot be done, as we have seen in Cyprus, where United Nations peacekeeping forces have been located for some 26 or 28 years.
All the peacekeeping operations we become involved in—no matter how many—will cost money. It is obscene that the world was prepared to spend $1 billion a day during the cold war in preparation for war, but is not prepared to spend a tiny fraction of that amount now to try to clear up the mess caused by the cold war and to provide the United Nations with the resources to do just that.
In his "Agenda for Peace", the Secretary-General suggested that there should be rapid response forces which he described as specific units. Such units are provided for under article 43 of chapter VII of the charter. As we have included powers for such provision in the United Nations, and as only now can the United Nations fulfil its proper functions as they were designed in respect of the Security Council, it seems rather short sighted for the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, endorsed by the Government, to say that it is not prepared to support the Secretary-General's call for specific units.
Such units would give the United Nations the ability to respond rapidly to situations before they develop into the kind of tragedy that we have seen in Bosnia. It is short-sighted of the Government and the Foreign Affairs Committee to have dismissed the idea—if not out of hand—and not to have gone along with it. I hope that there will be an opportunity for second thoughts. I believe that that is the way to make the United Nations peacekeeping and peace enforcing machinery far more effective. I will finish now and give my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South some extra time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) gives time to no one. I call Mr. Gapes.

Mr. Mike Gapes: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for allowing me to make an edited version of my speech, and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me.
Reference has been made to the change from the optimistic prognosis of a few years ago to the current gloomy view about the UN and the problems that it faces today. I am by nature an optimist, but I have become very pessimistic over recent weeks about the future of the UN and the great demands that it faces.
The Secretary-General's report, "Agenda for Peace", refers to those demands and states:
nations and peoples increasingly are looking to the United Nations for assistance for keeping the peace—and holding it responsible when this cannot be so".
However, it is not fair to hold the UN, as an institution, responsible. The nation states refuse to give the financial, organisational, political and military means to the UN to enable it to do the job. It is not the UN's fault if it cannot do the job. It is not being allowed to do that job.
I spoke at a school in my constituency this morning. A young Muslim boy told me that we were practising double standards in Bosnia. He said that we were quite happy to intervene in Kuwait, but we were not prepared to do that in Bosnia. I believe that he is wrong. I argued forcefully that the two situations are very different. However, it is clear that there is a substantial body of opinion, both outside and inside this country, that holds that boy's view very strongly.
If there is a peace agreement in Bosnia—we know that the prospects for that are not good—and if the meeting on 22 December leads to a breakthrough, 50,000 troops will be required to enforce that agreement. From my conversations last week with leading people in the United States Congress and leading Democratic Senators, I am extremely doubtful whether the American Congress will agree to give President Clinton the 25,000 troops necessary for a United States contribution, which I was told a month ago in NATO, would be required in respect of the 50,000 troops.
The United States, Britain, France and perhaps the Benelux countries will provide those troops. If we do not receive the 25,000 American troops, there will be no way that European Union countries alone will ever find the necessary number. Even if we have a peace agreement, national Governments, for national reasons, will not provide the forces to make such an agreement stick.
The Foreign Affairs Committee's report contains 70 recommendations. Regrettably, I do not have time to mention even seven of them. The Foreign Office's response is woefully inadequate. It does not even refer to several recommendations. It is time that the House had a proper response from the Government. When we produce detailed reports which entail months of work and lots of travel and cost the House and the British taxpayer thousands of pounds, the Government peremptorily dismiss or cursorily answer the points that are made. We need far better than that.
It is time that all of us recognised the importance of the international dimension in our affairs. It is not adequate to


have a three-hour debate on an issue of such importance. We need a much longer debate so that we can examine the proposals in detail and make an informed decision.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The fact that we found it necessary to lay the supplementary estimates and, indeed, the important speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) emphasise the great importance that we all now attach to peacekeeping within the United Nations. Indeed, the number of troops deployed and the increase in costs that we have seen are powerful evidence of the expansion in peacekeeping. I shall provide a few figures to demonstrate that point.
In 1991, there were 10,000 troops deployed in peacekeeping; in 1992, the figure increased to 44,000 and at present the number stands at 75,000. As for costs, which are another measure of the increase, in 1991, they were $482 million, in 1992, they were $1.5 billion, and in 1993, they were an estimated $3 billion. The United Kingdom now has 2,800 troops deployed in peacekeeping operations. As the House will know, our contribution to United Nations peacekeeping, exclusive of our own troop costs, is more than 6 per cent. of the assessed cost. In 1992, our assessed contribution to United Nations peacekeeping costs was $93.5 million. Those are extremely substantial sums.
The Committee's report, which has been spoken to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, is a very important contribution to the debate. Notwithstanding the changes that have undoubtedly taken place during drafting, many of the report's conclusions remain highly relevant and correct. I share, incidentally, the feeling of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford that there is increasing unwillingness within the United States, for the reasons that he mentioned, to become involved in peacekeeping operations, and that causes me at least very grave concern.
There are a number of comments and conclusions within the report with which I strongly agree. To start with, I do not think that one should or can expect the United Nations to act wherever there is a crisis. Most certainly, there have to be criteria. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on the need for criteria, and that was spelt out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he spoke to the United Nations General Assembly in September.
Indeed, there is also a need for us to determine our own criteria when trying to determine in which operations we wish to become involved. That will certainly take account of national interest and whether we have the right mix of forces for any particular task, and how the particular peacekeeping ranks in priority terms with other national defence commitments to be judged at the time.

Mr. Rogers: The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises a very important point if he is saying that Her Majesty's Government will pick and choose where they will participate in United Nations peacekeeping operations. In their reply to the report, the Government said:
a United Nations peacekeeping operation should not be mandated unless there is a reasonable chance of success.
It is a rather crude way of putting it, but is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that we should opt for easy operations and leave messy ones to others?

Mr. Hogg: I did not say that; nor does it stand up to analysis. We have about 2,400 troops in Bosnia. Although that is not a peacekeeping operation in the conventional sense, it is an extremely difficult one. Inevitably, one must pick and choose between operations. About 18 operations are being conducted by United Nations peacekeeping forces at the moment, and we are a party to three or four of them. I do not think that it would be right to participate substantially in more than that number. One has to allocate one's own priorities.
Another point that one needs to make is that a number of other organisations can be involved in peacekeeping. There was a very interesting debate in Rome, in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, about the circumstances in which the Commonwealth of Independent States, in particular Russian forces, can operate in the CIS under the authority and with the consent of the CSCE.
I agree strongly with the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford about the need for improved control and command mechanisms. That point was made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South, as well. I agree, too, with the overall conclusion that it would be an error to allocate or to earmark forces on a permanent standby basis to the United Nations. That point received endorsement from my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), the Chairman of the Select Committee.
We should also keep well in mind the importance, where appropriate, of trying to intervene early in developing crises by pre-emptive measures. That is the importance, perhaps, of the missions that have been sent by the CSCE to various countries within the former Soviet Union. It is also the importance of, for example, the appointment of the CSCE high commissioner on minorities or, to take the point of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), the United Nations Commissioner on Human Rights. By pre-emptive action of various kinds it is possible to reduce the risk of conflict.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is very difficult, is it not, to respond rapidly when the Secretary-General has to ask Security Council countries or other countries to provide troops? The whole point of having units on standby and allocated was that the Secretary-General would not have to do that and that the troops could move in very quickly.

Mr. Hogg: That is right up to a point, but the problem that was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster is that it is jolly difficult to know exactly the nature of the requirement on the ground that one will encounter in a rapid deployment. One could have an awful lot of people hanging around doing awfully little and with skills which are not wholly appropriate if one opted for that earmarking or standby approach. I would not commend it, and it would involve substantial control and command arrangements which we simply have not yet come to terms with.
I now refer to some specific points. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford expressed grave concern—I understand why—about why our expert was not elected to the advisory committee for administration and budgetary questions. That was a disappointment to us. It is not, however, in any sense fatal to our capacity to influence decisions in that respect, not least because that committee


advises the fifth committee. As my right hon. Friend knows, we have our people on the fifth committee to which the advisory committee is but an advisory committee.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) did not like our presentation of the accounts— he was supported by the hon. Member for Belfast, South. He has a point, and I will see whether we can do something to improve the accounts. The hon. Member for Rhondda went on to say that the United Nations should intervene more readily in circumstances where national governments are not currently meeting a need in the country involved. That is an important point.
To some extent, we have already been pushing the frontiers forward in, for example, north Iraq and south Iraq. However, one must stand back and say that the actions of the United Nations will always represent and reflect to some degree an assessment of strategic interest on the part of countries in the Security Council. There must be genuine interests at stake which engage their concern sufficiently to enable one to rally a consensus around an interventionist policy. Many countries have grave doubts of principle—most notably China and India —about the intervention by the United Nations in the internal affairs of other countries.

Mr. Rogers: I do not understand what the right hon. and learned Gentleman means. Is he saying that, unless there is a specific national interest, Britain will not contribute to peacekeeping activities?

Mr. Hogg: I did not say that. Hon. Members must realise that the Security Council of the United Nations is in a sense an aggregate of independent states which will certainly determine where their national interests lie when deciding how they will vote in the Security Council. That is inevitable and right.
There are many countries where there are grave issues and discords, and serious civil wars, which would justify intervention, if we judged them exclusively on moral terms. However, we will not intervene and there is no pressure to do so. One only has to say "Tadjikistan" to oneself to realise the force of what I am saying. The majority of countries on the Security Council will not wish to deploy troops in Tadjikistan, notwithstanding the fact that the crisis area is a grave one.
The hon. Member for Rhondda—he was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster —said that there is no real alternative to the United Nations and it is an error to look at alternative institutions. I go a long way with him, but not quite all the way because there are regional organisations that have an important role to play. We should not underestimate that role. The most important organisation in this context is the CSCE in the field of pre-emptive action—I mentioned the appointment of the CSCE High Commissioner of Minorities—and in missions designed to ascertain facts or promote settlements, for example, in Nagorno Karabakh, the Baltic states or Moldova.
Earlier, I referred to the Rome conference. There may be a possibility that the CSCE will be an instrument for approving peacekeeping operations by CIS forces in CIS countries. That matter must still be examined.
I shall answer the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West about the status of all CIS

countries. Those countries are all sovereign independent states and we regard them as such. We do not in any sense regard them as part of Russia or as countries over which Russia has some right of intervention. They are absolutely independent states.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) spoke about Bosnia—and he was right to do so. I agree that the position in Bosnia is likely to get much worse this winter unless there is an early peace agreement. That emphasises the importance of the Geneva talks, the need for Serbs to make greater concessions on land and, above all—having regard to my rather bleak assessment of probabilities—the need to keep humanitarian routes open.
My hon. Friend raised a specific point about war crimes. He said that the republics in the former Yugoslavia should use their own law to try people for war crimes. I agree with that, but one does not need to invoke the Geneva convention; most people can be tried under the domestic legislation of the individual republic.
My hon. Friend has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with a proposal that we should start a mission. I have noted what my hon. Friend said—it is an interesting idea. We will certainly look at the suggestion, but I can give no commitments at this stage.
I agree with the proposition of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) that the end of the cold war has made intervention easier and I understand the reasons that caused him to say that. I also agree with his broad proposition that we should stick to existing frontiers, notwithstanding the fact that many of them have been drawn in a fairly arbitrary and brutal manner. If we do not stick with those frontiers, what else do we have? To be honest, the principle of self-determination would lead to the fragmentation of the former Soviet Union and much of central and eastern Europe.
We must stick to the frontiers, subject to two provisos. First, where there is a genuine agreement of the respective parties to change the frontiers, so be it. It is not for us to stand in the way of genuine agreement. Secondly, I want to pick up one word used by the hon. Gentleman, because I do not know whether he meant it in the sense that it is usually meant. He said that we should "defend" existing frontiers. I start from the proposition that we should stick with existing frontiers, but I do not believe that the international community should go to fight on every occasion.
For example, one only has to consider the case of Azerbaijan and Armenia, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West, to see the truth of this. How many hon. Members think that the international community should go to war with Armenia? Yet so far as we can judge, Armenia has invaded Azerbaijan and expanded the Lutchin corridor substantially. I have that major reservation, although I agree with the hon. Gentleman's broad proposition.
The hon. Member for Western Isles and two of his colleagues came to see me about Sarajevo airport. I wish to ensure that we have the maximum use of Sarajevo airport, for all the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman. Following that meeting, I made an inquiry and an RAF officer went to Sarajevo to make a further inspection. We believe that all that can be done is being done to increase the use of the airport. A lot of work is being done on the runway and that is being expedited, but it is a small, ill-equipped airport and the problem is one of handling. To tell the truth, it is much better to rely on road transport when it can be managed,


although we will try to maximise the use of Sarajevo airport. I disagree with the proposition that we are not doing our best now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster made an important speech. I am grateful for his support and I agree with much of what he said. He said that we should not earmark forces for peacekeeping, we need to change the training of forces and we should give a high status to peacekeeping operations.
I felt that the hon. Member was a bit unfair about Cyprus. It is true that we have been running down our forces in Cyprus—we still have a considerable number there; I think the number is 475 troops—but the running down reflected our assessment of diminishing risk. The operation has been continuing for a long time and we must accept that other countries have a burden to carry in this matter and it is not right to look to a continuous United Kingdom presence. To be honest, I do not feel embarrassed about the matter.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) made a number of points. I thank him for his kind words about the Foreign Office staff. They are much appreciated and will be passed on to the staff, even though they come from the hon. Gentleman.
A more important point relates to assets and prisons. Absolutely no deals were made, none whatever. That is not something that we would want to do and we did not do it. On the sequestration of assets, the position is that the United Nations Security Council resolution 778 permits member states to sequestrate Iraqi frozen assets related to proceeds of sale of Iraqi petroleum or petroleum products, paid for by or on behalf of a purchaser on or after 6 August 1990. The Treasury considers that approximately £186,000 of Central Bank of Iraq frozen assets held by the Bank of England related to such proceeds of sale, and the Bank considered, too, that there were no third-party claims against them.
Notice has been given of our intention to transfer—not yet done—to the escrow account, which will be used for a

variety of purposes. Thirty per cent. goes to the compensation commission and the remainder goes to a variety of purposes, some humanitarian—some probably do not fall strictly under that heading—including food, medicines, the United Nations Special Commission, United Nations guards for convoys and the like. The Iraqi interest section now in the United Kingdom is aware of that intention and has been asked to make its comments.
Mention was made of the plight of Iraqis—perfectly true, their plight is awful. It is also perfectly true that, under Security Council resolutions 706 and 712, Saddam Hussein has a capacity to solve that problem. Those resolutions enable him to sell oil to a very substantial value, the proceeds of which will go to a variety of purposes, including the relief of humanitarian suffering in his own country. He has chosen not to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) was entirely right when he said that it is Saddam Hussein who must take the responsibility for what is happening.

Mr. Galloway: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I am afraid that I shall not give way, as I have only one more minute. I apologise.
I shall now comment on what my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South said about Bosnia. His position is well known and he has held to it consistently. he will forgive me if I say that, broadly speaking, I disagree with him. I particularly disagree when he says that we are all to blame and that it is a disgrace to which we all are party. It is not. It is a disgrace to which the active warring parties are party, not the rest of us. What is more, if one dilutes that proposition, one relieves the warring parties of responsibility. I can see that Mr. Deputy Speaker is about to call me to a stop, so I must finish.

The debate was concluded, and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).

Class IV, Vote 2

Aerospace Support

[Relevant documents: The Third Report from the Trade and Industry Committee of Session 1992-93 on the British Aerospace Industry (House of Commons Paper No. 563) and the Fourth Special Report from the Committee of Session 1992-93, containing the Government's Observations thereon (House of Commons Paper No. 945.)]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry on regional development grants, exchange risk and other losses, selective assistance to individual industries and firms, UK contributions arising from its commitments under the International Natural Rubber Agreement, a strategic mineral stockpile, support for the aerospace and shipbuilding industries, assistance to redundant steel and coal workers, for expenditure related to petroleum licensing and royalty, for other payments and for loans to trading funds.

Mr. Richard Caborn: It is pleasing to be able to debate the report on aerospace, the third report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. I shall put on the record our thanks to our staff, the Clerk, Mr. Gerhold, and his staff, who worked so hard in producing the report, and to our two advisers, Keith Hayward, professor of international relations at Staffordshire university, and Professor Garel Rhys, head of economics at Cardiff business school at the university of Wales. I also thank the Minister for sending me a letter at 6 o'clock this evening in response to some of the questions—I am sure that he is listening—that arose from the Government's reply. I do not think that the Minister takes us further forward on the points that we raised, but if my interpretation is wrong, I have no doubt that he will correct me when he replies later this evening, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The aerospace industry is that rarity in the United Kingdom—a high technology industry with added value in which the United Kingdom is one of the world leaders and has a large trade surplus. We have the third largest aerospace industry in the western world. We have one of only three prime manufacturers of civil aero-engines, an airframe company, which has the fifth largest aerospace turnover, and a strong aerospace equipment sector. I am sure that hon. Members will not need reminding of the importance of the British aerospace industry: a turnover of some £10 billion-plus; a consistently positive trade balance, amounting to £2.5 billion in 1992; 9 per cent. of all the United Kingdom's exports of manufactures; and employment and training of a highly skilled work force. Unfortunately, all that has diminished. There were roughly 250,000 employees in the early 1980s, decreasing to about 150,00 in 1992. There has also been a lot of technology spin-off to other sectors of our industry.
Given the strength of the industry, why was the Select Committee somewhat worried about it? Some argued that the industrial problems which have occurred, including the difficulties encountered by British Aerospace, are the result

of a severe cyclical downturn in civil aerospace and a longer-term decline in defence sales, which are affecting all our overseas competitors.
The real problem is structural. It is to do with the very long time scales in the aerospace industry for developing new products and receiving a return on investment. That is the most distinctive feature of the industry, which underlies the whole of the Select Committee's report. British Aerospace told us that the period from designing an aircraft to recovering the investment can be as long as 20 years, and that the design depends on technology development before that. Time scales are even longer for aero-engines. Dowty gave us an example of propellers based on technology that had taken some 25 years to develop. Dowty also said that it was making supplies for the Spitfire, but that is probably the exception, not the rule.
Those long time scales mean that the United Kingdom industry's current position now is the result of investment in the past 20 years or so and does not necessarily mean that all will continue to be well. The industry's future depends on the investment and research in technology acquisition being made now.
There is growing evidence that the United Kingdom industry is losing ground. Between 1980 and 1991, growth in United Kingdom industry turnover—using constant prices—was only 1.5 per cent., compared with 3.3 per cent. in the United States, 4 per cent. in France, 8 per cent. in Germany and 8.5 per cent. in Japan. In 1991, unfortunately, we were overtaken by France. The industry is worried that its present research and technology acquisition may be insufficient to keep up with its competitors, which receive greater Government assistance.
That was the reason for the Committee's inquiry—to examine the state of the industry and to see whether the worries about its future were justified. We concentrated on civil aerospace, but we are well aware that the civil and defence sectors are, to a large extent, interdependent. The Government replied to our report but, unfortunately, failed to answer many of the main questions raised.
Another distinct feature of the aerospace industry is the close involvement of Governments. One obvious reason is the strong defence interests. Another is those long time scales, which make it difficult to finance investment in the usual ways. Another is the belief by Governments that the aerospace industry has a strategic importance as a high-technology industry with spin-offs to other sectors.

Sir Michael Marshall: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his Committee and its report. Will he pick up the thread regarding space activity which is mentioned in the report? I recognise that the Committee did not feel able to examine the matter in detail, but it made the point about linkage between aerospace and space, particularly on the technology spin-off, the convergence of civil and military and the need, with the peace dividend, to shift more into space activities. Does he agree that that is something to which the Government should return, even though the Committee was not able to do so?

Mr. Caborn: That is the point. We were not able to investigate that matter. There is a synergy of activity that needs investigating. The hon. Gentleman rightly says that there is a spin-off, which I think is extremely important to the industry. Unfortunately, the Committee did not have time to go into that aspect, although we refer to it in the report. In practice, the international aerospace market is a


global industry, but it is not a free market. Our industry is competing against heavily subsidised foreign competition, although our Government recognise the distinctiveness of aerospace by providing launch aid for new products and by having a separate civil aircraft research and demonstration programme. We acknowledge that. However, the Government do not do enough to enable our industry, with its acknowledged technical excellence, to compete on equal terms in world markets.
Foreign Governments rarely advertise the full extent of the help that they give their aerospace industries, but two points are worth emphasising—the massive state aid assistance towards research and technology acquisition in the United States and the considerable assistance that has built up the German industry. According to the DTI's figures, the German industry has received three times as much launch aid as the UK industry in recent years. That injection of support resulted in Germany's turnover doubling between 1985 and 1989.
It is also interesting to note a document called "Statement of Position of Future Aid for Aviation Research and Technology from the Federal Government", which says:
The Federal Government sees an efficient German aircraft industry as an important contribution to Germany's economy. It welcomes international and, particularly, European cooperation by the German aircraft industry and its contributions to joint programes.
The German aircraft industry can only contribute to competitive European aircraft industry if it maintains and constantly develops its already high level of technology capability… A statement of position on future aid for aviation research and technology will he established by early 1994 and a decision will be taken on a concept of aid to aviation research and technology and about the relevant financing.
Let us look at a statement made by the President of the United States entitled "Technology for America's Economic Growth, A New Direction to Build Economic Strength". The main figures in that statement are startling by any standards. Clinton's technology proposals for the period 1994 to 1997 will involve a budget increase of $17 billion. Inevitably, a large proportion of that extra money will find its way into the American aeronautical industry. The Clinton report specificallly calls for
increasing research on civil aviation technologies, including an examination of the economic, marketing, safety, and noise aspects of advanced aircraft. We will also support advanced in-flight space and ground-based command, navigation, weather prediction, and control systems. US aeronautical, research and development facilities infrastructure such as wind tunnels will also be revitalised.
In addition, aerospace companies have been the main beneficiaries of the awards announced thus far under the Clinton technology reinvestment project, the 1993 budget of which was $472 million. Compare that with what happens in this country.
For those reasons, the Committee believes that there is a serious problem and that some changes in policy are needed. Obviously, Government action is not enough on its own. It is essential for the industry to improve its productivity. It is doing so, and we were impressed by its progress. International collaboration is increasingly important as the cost of developing new products rises.
We examined a number of collaborative ventures, such as the highly successful one between Rolls-Royce and BMW. However, collaboration and increased productivity are not sufficient to maintain a competitive United Kingdom industry. Unless our firms maintain their technological edge, they will not be able to attract the best

partners and the best terms for collaboration. I make it clear to the Minister that what we have taken to the negotiating table on all collaborative deals has been not a cheque but our technology. The House should take that seriously.
The Committee report focuses on four sectors, the first of which is launch aid for developing new products. That is not a subsidy, as has sometimes been claimed. The money is repayable with interest, as the product is sold. Occasionally, sales have been too low but, at the moment, the Government are receiving more money than they are paying out. According to the DTI, the purpose of launch aid is
to remedy a deficiency in the market arising from the reluctance or inability of companies or institutions to finance the heavy deployment cost of new aircraft products, since their return is subject to high risk and can be made only over the very long term".
Applicants have to demonstrate that a project is commercially and technically viable, that the Government will receive an 8 per cent. return and that, without that aid, the project would not otherwise go ahead.
It is unfortunate, therefore, that, when our report was produced, the Financial Times editorial of 22 July was somewhat ignorant of the facts of launch aid. It said:
Yesterday it served up a similar recipe for the aerospace sector: a five-fold increase to £100m in government subsidies; more generous aid to launch new products; and possible additional hand-outs to help companies convert from military to civil products.
Let me quote the example of Rolls-Royce, which wrote to me yesterday. It said:
Funds received under this scheme"—
under launch aid—
are not only repayable, but also carry a requirement to generate a real rate of return for the Government. In the case of Rolls-Royce, the Company has, since 1972, received nearly £500m in launch aid but no new launch aid has been provided after 1986. By the year 2000 we expect to have repaid 660m to the Government. The taxpayer is therefore deriving a significant return from this programme, whilst ensuring that the aerospace industry continues to generate wider economic benefits for the UK in the form of employment and exports.
I hope that the author of that Financial Times editorial will take note of what Rolls-Royce says.

Mr. Michael Stern: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that existing launch aid programmes do not carry the element of subsidy but are set out on purely commercial terms. I hope that he will therefore explain what may have given rise to that editorial —the conclusion of his report, which suggested that terms for the repayment of the launch aid should be drastically eased.

Mr. Caborn: We said that in the context of the wider area in which our aerospace industry is playing. Let us cast an eye at our major European competitors. For example, although the Federal Republic of Germany gives launch aid, it does not demand the return that we demand in the United Kingdom, so that money is fed back into the industry. If the hon. Gentleman cares to read our report carefully, he will find the answer to his question.
We made one major recommendation about launch aid—that the DTI should adopt a more positive attitude towards equipment makers, and should take into account the size and resources of equipment suppliers when assessing whether launch aid was needed. The DTI told us that there was no ban on equipment makers receiving launch aid. However, no equipment maker has done so since 1981. Our evidence showed that the DTI was wrong


to believe that equipment makers were necessarily much better able to obtain a commercial return within a reasonable time than makers of airframes or aero-engines could. For example, according to the Electronic Engineering Association, it typically takes 10 years for avionics systems to achieve a profit. Market failings apply to equipment as much as to airframes and aero-engines. The Government's reply repeats the arguments that we profoundly disputed.
Launch aid for the larger civil aircraft has typically been 50 to 60 per cent., but it is now restricted by the agreement between the EC and the United States to 33 per cent., and it may be reduced further as a result of the negotiations on the general agreement on tariffs and trade—we hope to see an end to them soon. Thus, the direct support on which Europe has concentrated will be severely curtailed.
The Americans responded by providing indirect support instead, in the form of assistance towards research and development. The agreement limits that to 3 per cent. of the civil aircraft industry's annual commercial turnover in the country concerned and to 4 per cent. of the annual commercial turnover of any one firm. However, indirect support is far harder to monitor and control than direct support, so the American industry may have an advantage over European industries.
To be effective, any increase in support for most parts of the aerospace industry will need to be in the form of indirect support for research and technology acquisition. It was particularly fortunate that the DTI's aviation committee produced its national strategic technology acquisition plan, known as NSTAP, shortly before we began our inquiry. The purpose of NSTAP was to identify the technologies that the aviation committee believed United Kingdom industry would need during the next two decades and to sort out priorities.
Category 1 was the technologies on which the industry's future competitive edge will depend, such as advanced wing design. Categories 2 and 3 were less central but still important. Those could, if necessary, be acquired through collaboration whereas category 1 technologies needed to be developed by the United Kingdom alone. I stress that this is an area that is not clear in the report. If we are to take technology to the negotiating table for collaborative deals, category 1 must have the type of support that is rightly demanded by the industry.
NSTAP is not about picking winners but about developing a range of enabling technologies that the United Kingdom industry can incorporate into competitive products. It can be regarded as an early technological foresight exercise.
NSTAP also discusses ways of increasing the effectiveness of research and technology expenditure, such as organising it within a clearly defined national strategy. The Committee attached great importance to NSTAP as a way of maintaining the competitiveness of the United Kingdom's aerospace industry.
NSTAP did not come with a price tag, but the industry's estimate is that it would require £90 million to £100 million a year from the Government over a 10-year period. That sum would need to be matched by an equivalent amount from the industry. That is more likely to be forthcoming for a collaborative effort such as the ones described in NSTAP.
Unfortunately, that sum compares with only £22.5 million spent on the DTI's civil aircraft research and development programme in the present year. In 1993 prices, £85 million was spent in 1974. One can extrapolate from that information the fact that the current net return to the Treasury from the aerospace industry is the result of the investments made some 10 or 20 years ago. According to Dowty, £90 million to £100 million is the minimum necessary to keep us ahead in the race.
We made two linked recommendations—that the Government should make a full assessment of the expenditure on research and technology acquisition that they believe is necessary to maintain the industry's technological competitiveness and that they should increase their funding of aerospace research and technology acquisition to a level that is sufficient to maintain the industry's technological competitiveness. We want the Government to benchmark their funding of the industry against that provided by foreigners. That is not an unreasonable request.
The Government's response has been disappointing. Although they state that they are adopting the priorities set out in NSTAP, they are simply maintaining the existing level of funding. They have failed to reply to our recommendation about assessing how much funding is needed to maintain the industry's competitiveness. They state:
priorities must be set between the various demands of industry and the economy as a whole.
Of course they must, but how can priorities be set unless the Government have first found out what is needed? Either present funding is sufficient to sustain the industry or it is not.
If the Government can show that funding is sufficient, there is no problem. If they cannot, either funding must be increased or we must resign ourselves to the British aerospace industry slowly losing its competitiveness, with all the consequences that that involves. It is essential that we find out what is required to maintain competitiveness so that we know which path the United Kingdom is following.
As to the third major aspect of the report, the Government's greatest impact on the aerospace industry is through defence procurement, and I am pleased to see the Minister here this evening. Our report was chiefly concerned with the civil sector, but all the major United Kingdom companies produce for both civil and defence markets, and much of the technology is common to both. Throughout the world, overheads have tended to be borne by the military work. We therefore looked closely at the MOD's procurement practices.
Until the early 1980's, much defence procurement was undertaken without competition through preferred contractors, and development was largely on a cost-plus basis. Since 1983, there has been a more commercial approach, with a much higher proportion of competitively let contracts. That has clearly had advantages. According to the MOD, it has saved not only money but sharpened the defence industry's commercial edge.
That approach was strongly criticised by many of our witnesses and it contrasts strongly with the procurement policies in other industries. The cost-plus approach and competititve tendering are not the only ways of organising procurement; there is also the partnership approach which is associated most strongly with Rover and Nissan in the car industry. No one suggests that Rover and Nissan are ripped off by their suppliers. They give their suppliers a


hard time, but it helps them to improve their performance and offers them a long-term relationship, provided they continue to meet standards and targets.
Only two weeks ago, my colleagues visited Rover and heard about the change in relation that is now one of the jewels in our manufacturing crown. Only four or five years ago, Rover would get six or seven suppliers around a table, get a big stick, beat them on the head and ask them whether they could reduce their prices by 2p. Instead, they would knock them down by 3p, but Rover had more rejects and defects on motor cars coming off the line. Now Rover and Nissan have long-term relationships and negotiate contracts with their suppliers of between five and 15 years. That brings stability to the industry. The results are not only better and cheaper components for Rover and Nissan but a vastly more competitive motor components industry.
One cannot necessarily transfer the same sort of relationship in full to defence procurement, but one might reasonably suspect the MOD to see what it can learn from successful innovations in other areas, and the Committee recommended that it does so instead of leaving it to the National Audit Office to examine its procurement issues. It would be helpful if the Minster would inform the House whether "partnership sourcing" is part of the terms of reference for the NAO examination.
The Committee was also dissatisfied with the way in which the MOD conducts its procurement. In questions to the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and civil servants, it became clear that recommendations made by officials were based solely on the defence aspect, and that other factors, such as the industrial consequence of decisions, were simply drawn to the attention of Ministers.
The Minister showed some sympathy with the argument that wider civil interests should be taken into account rather than exclusively military interests. If that is to be done, consideration of the wider issues, such as the long-term strength of related industries such as civil aerospace, should be built into the procurement process from the start, and we recommend accordingly. The Government's reply does little more than describe existing practices.
The fourth major aspect of the Committee's report was a call for the Government
to set out in much greater detail than hitherto the overall policy framework and view of the industry's future which it intends to guide individual decisions affecting the United Kingdom aerospace industry.
That is nothing to do with the Government interfering in industrial decisions, or extending their role in the industry. It would not necessarily mean any extra spending. We are seeking a more coherent approach by the Government in areas in which they already make decisions— on research support, launch aid, procurement, international collaboration, export promotion and training.
That would need to be based on a view, developed in consultation with the industry, of where the United Kingdom industry's competitive strengths lie and how they can be maintained and extended. The benefits would be more consistent Government decisions across departmental boundaries, ensuring that limited resources are used to best effect and that the industry knows what to expect from Government.
That was the most inadequate aspect of the Government's reply. It says little more than
the DTI constantly reviews the issues facing the aerospace sector

with various organisations, firms and other Departments. We believe that the evidence discussed in our report showed present practices fall far short of what is needed, and short of what foreign Governments with clear aims and strategies achieve for their aerospace industries. We have pressed the DTI for further consideration of the issue.
Another point concerns the further reductions in military expenditure and the conversion of defence resources, especially in technological skills and the use of civil manufacturing. We recommended a study of how British industry can be assisted in the transfer from military to civil manufacture. Unfortunately, the Government said that there was no need for a study and that it should be left for either market forces or Europe to decide.
The United Kingdom aerospace industry has to compete in the market as it is, dominated by Government-backed competitors. There is no free market in aerospace products. The Trade and Industry Select Committee concluded that the United Kingdom industry needed more effective Government help, probably including some increased spending, to enable it to compete on equal terms in world markets. Without that, the industry was likely to lose its technological competitiveness, not in the next year or two, but slowly over the next decade or so. The Government may wish to dispute that, but they have not done so in their reply to our report.
That extra help is needed; the question is how high it will be on the scale of priorities. Is manufacturing industry, including the aerospace industry, a priority or not? I have no doubt what the answer to that question should be, and I believe that our report points the Government in that direction. If we want to keep the jewel in the crown shining and not tarnished, I suggest that the Government respond to the report's recommendations more positively.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I must declare a commercial interest. I chair a company which is actively involved in the aerospace industry, so I have a professional concern for its welfare. I have also just concluded a parliamentary industrial fellowship—a post-graduate attachment—with TI. The subject I concentrated on, mostly with Dowty Aerospace, was the future of the aerospace industry at a time of airline recession and defence cuts.
The severe downturn in the civil air transport business and the drastic reductions in military budgets have impinged in a most dramatic way upon an industry which is crucial to the economic welfare of our nation and vital for our national security and prosperity.
I believe that the Government have a strategic interest in maintaining the United Kingdom as one of the leading aerospace nations in the western world. They should tailor their policies accordingly and bear five things in mind when constructing that strategy. First, for defence considerations, the Government should remember that we need a truly competitive military aerospace business. Secondly, they should note that rotary wing manufacture is an industry with a future, civil as well as military. Thirdly, we are already in civil air transport construction and need to remain so. Fourthly, we are pre-eminently the western European nation with a world capability in the construction of aero engines. Fifthly, the Government should consider that we neglect space at our peril and that we need to invest more in it. I should add to those five points a sixth—


consideration of equipment—because, unless we concentrate on those five points, it is likely that we will not have a competitive equipment and component sector.
There are two aspects to the civil sector. British Aerospace, which has come to dominate the manufacture or part-manufacture of civil air transports in this country, went through an extraordinary process of expansion in recent years. It followed a process of diversification into all kinds of activities which bore no relation to its core businesses. It was almost as though the company made a Gadarene rush into acquisition, diversification and expansion. Under Mr. Cahill, BAe has now wisely returned to its roots and is focusing on its core businesses. The process of doing so, however, is difficult and painful and it has caused much readjustment within the company.
It has been decided that for the smaller range of civil air transports, the regional jet range of four-engine turbo fans based on the 146, a partner should be sought in Taiwan Aerospace. This may or may not come to fruition and it looks much less likely than it did, but BAe should have sought a more appropriate partner, such as Fokker, in good time. Fokker is now part of DASSA, so an opportunity was missed. I hope that we may retain some part of the regional jet market in years to come, but it will not be easy.
Likewise, it will not be easy to retain an important and significant share in the smaller twin-turbo prop market, where there is already significant overcapacity. In its wisdom, BAe is pursuing collaboration with PTN in Indonesia to try to develop complementarily the Jetstream series of aircraft. Indonesia has been working for some time with CASA of Spain. We shall see if the arrangement works out; I hope that it will. Again, however, it must be said that such readjustments and attempts at new partnerships have come very late in the day.

Mr. George Foulkes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Parliament was lobbied today by the management and workers, with the support of their local authority, of the Jetstream project? They pointed out that it was difficult for Jetstream to compete with some competitors who had an advantage because the subsidies given to them by their Governments were far in excess of the support given by the United Kingdom. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that delegation that we should give similar support or that we should ensure, through GATT or the European Community, that there is no unfair competition so that Jetstream can compete fairly with the other aircraft?

Mr. Wilkinson: I take to heart what the hon. Gentleman has said and I share the concerns of the workers at Prestwick, and those who come from his constituency. Like the hon. Gentleman, I want to see what was Scottish Aviation prosper under its new guise and have an assured future. It will be very difficult to ensure genuinely fair competition, however, because nations that are embarking on creating indigenous aircraft industries are bound to give generous support to the easiest part of the industry to develop—the construction of relatively unsophisticated twin-turbo prop aircraft.
I want negotiations through GATT on this matter, as on all others, to prove in the future to have been a success. I cannot say that this area of BAe's business is absolutely secure yet. The company is, however, determined to make

it competitive, and I am sure that the workers at Prestwick are working as hard as they ever did to make a success of it. It has good a good product range.
The larger end of the product range is represented by the airbus series of aircraft. Here again, launch aid has proved itself. When I was chairman of my party's aviation committee in the mid-1980s I remember going along to see my right hon. Friend, Mrs. Thatcher, with the past committee chairmen to argue for launch aid for the A320. She replied, "Oh John, it will never work. Boeing will dominate the market. Why should we waste our time on things like that?"—or words to that effect.
We managed, however, with the support and encouragement of the Labour party and that of Lord Varley, then an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, to table an early-day motion which commanded the support of nearly half the membership of the House. As a result, we persuaded Her Majesty's Treasury to invest £220 million in launch aid. The A320 sold more aircraft off the drawing board than any airliner in west European history.
The purpose behind this anecdotal account is to show that there genuinely is a worthwhile role for launch aid. When those responsible for the airbus come to build a really big aircraft to compete with or to succeed the jumbo, the new aircraft could be a worthwhile candidate for launch aid.
What worries me about the military side of business is the way in which the European fighter aircraft programme has absorbed such a large proportion of the Government's defence budget for development. For understandable reasons, the first flight will probably be two years late and the entry into service will be some four years late. I compare that with the achievements of Avions Marcel Dassault which is building its Rafale aircraft on its own and has already got several prototypes in the air for the French air force and for the French fleet air arm.
I am also interested in the progress of the Swedish Saab JAS39 programme. I know that BAe has a marketing agreement with Saab for the aircraft and that it is lending its expertise, especially in the development of the flight control system. However, for the next generation of combat aircraft, I wonder whether we should have four-nation programmes again. They are complicated to manage and extremely political in nature.
Also, if a programme such as the EFA consumes such a disproportionate part of what used to be known as the Air Force's budget and is now the MOD's budget for air systems, it has a negative impact on important equipments which are at least as important as the platforms. For example, a stand-off weapon for Tornado has been in mind for many years and still has not come to fruition. The RAF needs an intelligent anti-armour weapon, especially as the MLRS 3 has been cancelled.
Britain's defence has been degraded by the fact that we cannot afford, at least in the immediate future, to deploy a medium surface-to-air missile to replace the Bloodhound. I also gather that the mid-life update of the Tornado to the GR4 standard will not be as comprehensive as would otherwise have been the case. In future, I hope that we shall not invest such a vast amount in mega-projects but will consider them more carefully.

Mr. Keith Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the first flight of the Eurofighter 2000 has been somewhat delayed, first flights of previous aircraft have also been delayed and it is therefore not outside the


band that one would expect? Despite the fact that the Eurofighter has not yet flown, the in-service date from the French air force for Rafale is after that of Eurofighter, in 2001, and the Rafale aircraft will be more expensive and inferior to the EFA.

Mr. Wilkinson: All those things may or may not be true. I hope they are, because I like to see projects in which the British have a leading role proving to be the best. The projects must be the best because, if we are deploying a front-line fighter/attack aircraft, it must do its job against a potentially well-equipped adversary. For good military and industrial reasons, I hope that what my hon. Friend—who has considerable experience and professional wisdom in those matters—said is true. Nevertheless, I feel bound to inject a note of caution.
In a relatively short time, we shall also need an enhancement of our air transport force. We have all recognised the importance to our aid efforts and to our military deployments of the Herculese C130 aircraft which are in service with the RAF. They are wonderful work horses, but they cannot go on for ever. There must be a limit to the process of refurbishment. There is an improved version of the C130—the J version—available to the RAF. Were it selected, it would benefit British industry because the RAF would be the launch customer and a number of British suppliers such as Dowty Rotol for the propellers, Westland Aerospace for the nacelles, Smiths, Lucas and Marshalls of Cambridge would benefit. More than that, we would get a transport into service which was much more cost effective than the existing version of the Hercules.
I hope that the Government will recognise these facts and will not let themselves be diverted into thinking about what may or may not come into service in the next century—future large aircraft, or whatever. I doubt whether the Ministry of Defence has the money to invest development funding in a strategic turbo fan transport of the FLA category.
One has only to consider the problems McDonnell Douglas has had with the C17, which is badly over budget, late and performing below specification. Since we took the Belfast out of service many years ago, we have not invested in a strategic long-range transport aircraft. We have not bought C5s or C141s. Instead, when needed, we have chartered civil Belfasts and used them for military purposes. Can the decision on the Hercules C130 be postponed any longer? I do not think that it should be.
Nor should we postpone for too long important decisions which affect the future of our rotary wing aircraft constructor Westland. There are two major programmes vital to the future of the company—first, the selection of an attack helicopter for the Army and I hope for the Royal Marines too, and I say that advisedly; and a new support helicopter for the Royal Air Force. The Secretary of State for Defence has announced that he intends, as I understand it, to buy a mix of EH 10l support helicopters and additional Chinook helicopters. We shall certainly need them and the attack helicopters soon because wherever our troops are deployed —whether in peacekeeping operations as we debated earlier or otherwise—we always need more helicopters.
The aero engine business is important to our future as an industrial and engineering nation. It is remarkable how we have stayed in the big league for so many years and how competitive Rolls-Royce plc has remained, even after the trauma of the failure of the company in 1971. Rolls-Royce

plc now has a range of products which have important niches in their respective markets —for example, the Trent for big long-range twin jets, the Tay for the medium-range civil transports and long-range business aircraft, the EJ200 for the European fighter aircraft and other military programmes, the RTM 322 for helicopters or for potential business aircraft use, and the BMW-Rolls-Royce 700 series of collaborative engines for medium-range transports.
Rolls-Royce plc needs to be sustained because it is of strategic importance to Britain. I do not know whether it will come to an arrangement with Pratt and Whitney or how it sees its commercial future. However, it is crucial for our national defence and our engineering capacity that we stay in the aero engine business. If Rolls-Royce plc asks the Government for launch aid for programmes which it believes to be commercially viable, I hope that its request will be sympathetically received.
One also ought to bear in mind that the market for spares continues for 25 to 30 years after an engine has gone out of production. For example, spares for the Dart, the Spey, the Avon and the Tyne are still being manufactured. Engines such as the Adour, the RB199 and the Pegasus will serve the spares businesses for many years to come.
Looking back at the development of our aircraft industry over the past generation, the decision which I believe to be most fatal for the welfare of the space business in Britain was the one to opt out of the launcher business. You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in the mid-1960s we had in Blue Streak a launcher which could have provided the main launch facility for Europe for decades to come. Instead we unilaterally decided to get out of the business.
Aerospatiale, CNES—the French national space agency—and the French Government decided to support the Ariane series of launchers, and very good business they have proved. In space, we have concentrated more on telecommunications, remote sensing and so on. This is an appropriate field. It is good business and it is worth while. But as other nations such as Japan, China and India all recognise the importance of space, we shall need to invest more.
I congratulate the Select Committee on its timely report. I am pleased that the Government have given a thoughtful reply to its recommendations. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement should have taken time to share the debate with us. It is in the interests of our country that the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry work together to support an industry of such crucial commercial and strategic significance.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It is self-evident that many hon. Members want to speak in the debate tonight. We do not have a great deal of time. I ask hon. Members who catch my eye early to exercise considerable restraint. Otherwise, there will be many disappointed Members.

Mr. Ken Eastham: I find this a rather refreshing debate. It is unusual because, for a change, we are speaking about industry. So often, we find


ourselves discussing insurance, finance and housing, but on this rare occasion we are talking about making things—things that we can make well and sell abroad.
Tonight, we are talking about something we are really good at. One thing that we are good at is the aerospace industry. As far as it goes, our industry is the best in Europe. The only major competitor is America, so we can sell our goods abroad. This debate is not about begging or about pleading for something to which we are not entitled. Many of us feel that the aerospace industry is entitled to more consideration from the Government. Unfortunately, it does not have it.
I remember reading a newspaper headline after a report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry was published. It said, "DTI snubs Select Committee on the conclusions of its report." The Trade and Industry Select Committee has achieved a unanimous report. It is to be congratulated on the way in which it has gone about it. The industry is also to be congratulated because it had co-operated in a non-political way with a sincere desire to improve British capability and profitability.
It is a great pity that we have received little encouragement so far. I plead with Ministers urgently to review their thinking. The aerospace industry is one of the few success industries. If the United Kingdom aerospace industry failed, some of our competitors, such as Germany, France and others, would be delighted. It would mean less competition for them. They would become more and more prosperous and we would gradually wither away.
Even the Government have talked recently about the need to improve our industrial base. The Prime Minister and other Ministers have said that. That is somewhat belated, but we who come from industry are delighted that, at last, industry is being recognised. Even the Engineering Employers Federation raised its hands in despair 12 months ago and said that not enough was being done for the engineering industry.
I am sad to have to tell the House tonight that only last week in my area, Ferranti—a well-known company—was on the point of closure. Several hundred highly skilled jobs could be lost, mainly in the north-west. The nation can ill afford to lose those highly skilled people. They would lose their job through no fault of their own. It is not a case of their incompetence, lack of skill or lack of competitiveness. On this occasion, it was just a case of bad management. That is a fact. Those hundreds of jobs are now to be smashed.
It is also a fact that the aerospace industry has been contracting at a tidy old pace. About 27,000 jobs have gone. I should like to impress on the Government that unless they do something radical, that contraction will accelerate. We shall lose one of the finest industrial winners that we have.
I should like to underline a few special issues. The first is GATT. I sincerely believe that we must not give the United States aerospace industry more favourable terms than other countries. We already know that the United States heavily subsidises its aricraft industry. It has a massive defence industry which is far bigger than any aircraft defence industry in any other country in the world. It has the largest space industry and a massive satellite empire. That is all high-tech industry which we know is

being spilled into the American aircraft industry. For those reasons, we must be extremely careful when we negotiate with the Americans in the GATT round.
Another issue is national strategic technology acquisition. I understand that the Treasury is receiving £30 million net cash in launch aid for the A320. Yet it is deplorable to report that the civil aviation fund is being cut. That is not a sign of progress. Those are some of the damning facts that have to be faced up to.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) referred to the need to develop the European future large aircraft. There may be a debate about whether we should enter that industry. I believe that we cannot afford not to. At present, America has a monopoly in very large aircraft. We must attempt to stop world monopoly of, say, the American Hercules. The only way in which we can do that is to apply ourselves, along with other European countries, to producing the goods.
It is no good saying that we cannot, or should not do it. The same was said about the airbus. People said that it would not work. I am not a little Englander, but I believe that our engineering is as good as any in the world. Therefore, I do not believe that we cannot develop a large aircraft. We can do it if our engineering skills are given the chance. If we embarked on such a project, we would also avoid heavy import costs. It affects the balance of payments when one makes massive purchases of such aircraft. There is no doubt that such purchases will continue.
My next subject is export credits. We have not supported industry very well and for proof of the pudding one has only to make comparisons with the favourable terms that Germany and France have been able to offer, which mean that we are not playing on a level playing field. We have been greatly disadvantaged and there is no doubt that, owing to certain changes, such as the end of the cold war, the market is declining and will become far more aggressive. We can, therefore, justify additional help from the Government.
If the Department of Trade and Industry had offered more support we would have gained a larger market share. For example, we could have built a larger proportion of the airbus if the DTI had given more assistance; we got the wings. We are grateful for that, as it has been a money spinner. However, some people have no doubt that it we had been more determined and had had the courage to invest more, we could have had a bigger share of the cake and made more of a very successful aircraft than just the wings.
One final plea is that we must remember that the aerospace industry is highly technical and that the staff in it need quality training. If we are to be world leaders we must place more emphasis on high-tech skills and spend some money on them.
I do not think that any hon. Member has mentioned that we must also remember the industry's hundreds of equipment suppliers and their sub-contractors. Thousands of supply jobs will be at stake outside the aerospace companies if there is any further contraction in the industry. Time is not on our side. We must make some decisions now. We cannot put it off, or say that we will think about it at the turn of the century. By that time, it will be too late and other countries will have wiped our industry out. We must decide whether we are to have a British


aerospace industry. I predict that if we do not take that decision, our aerospace industry will become just another British engineering graveyard.

Mr. Keith Mans: I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to discuss the aerospace industry and I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), who opened the debate. I agree with him that the industry has been a world beater. It contributes 9 per cent. of out total manufacturing exports, valued at £7.7 billion last year. In addition, our industry is 30 per cent. more efficient than the German industry at manufacturing aircraft. It operates at the frontiers of science in a number of different areas of technology and that is well established by three articles in the most recent edition of the journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society.
The first article deals with the YF22—the latest American fighter—and reflects the advances in two areas in which aviation has led other industries—the lightness and strength of materials. Those advances will be taken a stage further by Eurofighter 2000—an aircraft which will be 85 per cent. non-metal. While it is the same size as Tornado—an aircraft which illustrates the previous generation of technology—it is none the less 30 per cent. lighter and considerably stronger. For good measure, its radar signature is 50 per cent. less than that of the Tornado. Despite all those advances, in real terms, the aircraft is cheaper than the Tornado. Those new materials and the techniques used to produce them economically will have an ever-widening use in commercial aircraft—as has happened with the previous advances in military technology that have transferred directly to commercial aircraft—and in many other industries.
The second article described fly-by-wire systems, which are designed to make aircraft lighter, but also to improve their reliability and to reduce pilot error. In aircraft today, the controls are operated by touch, but in future they might even be operated by sight. Those advances are at the forefront of technology. Britain is again ahead, or at least abreast, of the world. The new systems require highly complicated software, which is constantly testing the frontiers of artificial intelligence. The systems that are being tested for aircraft today will have applications in a wide range of industrial processes tomorrow, as the interface between man and machine becomes even more sophisticated.
The third article describes jet engine development, where increased thrust aligned with efficiency and reliability—to say nothing of aviation's constant need for lightness and strength—are driving engine designers to look for even more esoteric material and production techniques, to allow higher temperatures at the back end of the engines, while increasing mass flow at the front. As hon. Members have said, Rolls-Royce has been at the forefront of those developments, especially in the development of the wide-core fan, which has revolutionised compressor development. The company has also developed turbine blades that allow even higher inlet temperatures. The developments are vital to Rolls-Royce if it is to continue to sell engines in the same numbers.
Another illustration of the advanced nature of the aircraft industry is to be found in management techniques. Here I must differ with my hon. Friend the Member for

Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). Any development is highly expensive and, therefore, partnerships are the order of the day. That means that design teams in different countries, speaking different languages, have to communicate effectively with each other. That is taken to the ultimate in the production of the Eurofighter 2000, where one wing is produced by the Italians and the other is a combination of British and Spanish manufacture. I hope that we shall see it fly successfully within the first quarter of next year.
The techniques used to allow such management practices to be successful have a direct bearing on some other industries, as they, too, find that the only way to fund the development of new products is through partnerships with companies in other countries. Because it is operating at the frontiers of science, the development of new aircraft and air systems is highly expensive. In the past, Governments have been intimately involved in such developments—not always successfully—but it is worth pointing out that, during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, the British Government's involvement in many developments had a direct bearing on the size and strength of the aircraft and component industry today.
The aerospace industry is a long-term industry. Investments 20, 15 or 10 years ago have a direct bearing on the number of people employed and the wealth created today and on revenues to the Exchequer. Even Concorde, which in pure cash terms was not a commercial success, has allowed our component and avionics industries to remain at the forefront of today's techonology. That has meant considerable export success during the past decade for many companies, contributing much more back to the Treasury in tax revenues than was expended on the development of Concorde.
Many other countries recognise the need to foster and develop their aircraft industries. I noticed in The Times on Saturday that the French balance of payments surplus last month almost accurately reflected our deficit. That is in no small way due to the whole-hearted commitment to aviation of the French. They have built up an industry that was almost non-existent after the second world war into one that is slightly larger than ours today, a fact made clear by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central.
The Americans, too, have recognised the importance of the aircraft industry and have funded virtually all their civilian programmes through research and development contracts for similar military projets. Other countries, particularly in the developing world and around the Pacific rim, also want to create and develop their aerospace industries. It might seem strange that so many countries wish to do that, bearing in mind the high cost and poor returns in the short term. The reasons are twofold: first, they recognise the long-term nature of the industry—aircraft produced today are likely to be in service in 20 or 30 years' time; and, secondly, the cost of maintaining and supplying them with spares many times exceeds their original price.
Nothing illustrates the long-term nature of the industry better than the British Government's decision in 1971 to pull out of the Airbus consortium. As a result, now that we are back in we have only 20 per cent. rather than 33 per cent. of the content of any of the aircraft produced by that consortium. That means a smaller British contribution than would otherwise have been the case. When we consider the number of aircraft that the Airbus consortium has sold,


which runs into thousands, that fact alone partly explains the balance of payments difference between France and Britain.
The need to support the aviation industry is recognised even by the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which allows Governments to contribute up to 33 per cent. of the launch aid for new aerospace projects. The point is simple: even if we sign the GATT, no one should be under the misapprehension that it will allow us to trade on a level playing field with others that want us to become involved in aerospace activities if we do not continue to be involved in launch aid and support our industry.
We must recognise the strategic importance of the aerospace industry to this country. That means not that we should initiate state-run projects but that the DTI should get behind developments that help aerospace companies in this country to maintain their position in the world. That will mean supporting new development and research in all sorts of areas, particularly those that I mentioned earlier. It means encouraging partnerships between different companies to produce specific aircraft or series of aircraft, as well as the provision of launch aid.
As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central said, there is much evidence of the support that the Americans are giving their jet engine industry, amounting to some $760 million a year. What is even more significant about that amount is that some of the money being provided to launch the G-90 engine produced by General Electric—the direct rival of the Rolls-Royce Trent—is being provided by the European Community through the link between General Electric and the French engine company, SNECMA.
It is therefore no surprise that the decision taken by British Airways a year or two ago to buy that engine was based on the better price that GE could offer compared with Rolls-Royce, largely because of the subsidy that it received not only from the American Government but from the European Community. That example shows clearly the importance of the British Government getting right behind Rolls-Royce in this highly competitive jet engine industry, which will mean wealth creation, tax revenues and jobs running well into the next century.
That is true also for commercial aircraft. Because the Americans can no longer cross-subsidise, to the extent that they have in the past, civilian projects from military technology, they will directly subsidise commercial aircraft. Indeed, President Clinton has said as much in a number of speeches.

Mr. Stephen Day: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Woodford plant of British Aerospace, where it builds the 146, is in my constituency. The company is looking to the future, with a deal with Taiwan and further development on the 146. Does he agree that it is essential, should the Taiwan deal not go through—we all hope and are fairly confident that it will, but have our doubts because we cannot be certain—that the company should have a chance to look for other partners because of the expertise and efficiency at the plant and the sacrifices made to produce an efficient manufacturing base at Woodford? Does he agree that, in those circumstances, it is essential that the Government ensure that such plants survive to be competitive in the future?

Mr. Mans: I agree with my hon. Friend to the extent that, if the regional jet series of aircraft produced by British Aerospace are to be successful in the future, they will need to look for partners outside this country. In that context, the British Government should get behind industries that are looking for partners to ensure that projects like the regional jet series continue, and continue to sell well abroad.
Another point that must be recognised relates to the reduced contribution that defence budgets, particularly ours, will make to research and development. In the past, we have partly gone down the American road of funding development through the defence vote. That is bound to be reduced in the future and it is, therefore, important that the DTI takes a more active role in that area, in partnership with the Ministry of Defence. Military and civilian development of aircraft have always run together, but now the burden of developing new products will fall increasingly on the commercial side. One way forward has already been pioneered in America, where partnership deals between companies and Government push along together developments that benefit both and have military and civilian objectives.
That can be taken a stage further. In the early 1980s, we produced an aircraft called the European aircraft prototype as a technology demonstrator for Eurofighter. We now have an opportunity in relation to the future large aircraft project. Here, I differ somewhat with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood and believe that we must at least get the RAF to put a spec forward to that consortium to say what they want, so that the consortium can at least see whether its proposals meet the RAF's needs.
In that area, there is a possibility of providing a similar technology demonstrator to get industry and Governments together to see whether an aircraft to meet the needs of the different air forces in Europe for tactical and medium-range transport can be produced on this side of the Atlantic.
The DTI has a reasonable record of supporting the aerospace industry, at least until the mid-1980s. Its support in the future will become even more vital, as the industry becomes even more competitive. Without it, one of our few remaining world-class industries is likely to go slowly into decline. That has ramifications well beyond aerospace.
As the Select Committee report says, we need an overall policy framework for the industry. The DTI needs to spell out clearly its strategic thinking towards the industry. If it does that and supports the industry in the future, as it did before 1986, there is a fair chance that the aerospace industry will remain at the forefront of technology and continue to contribute handsomely both to our exports and to Exchequer revenues.

Mr. Nigel Jones: I welcome this opportunity to debate the crucial aerospace industry. I pay tribute to the Chairman and members of the Select Committee for producing such a readable and worthwhile report.
A few weeks ago, during the conference season, the Prime Minister made some encouraging comments about manufacturing industry. He said:
We want British industry to be the best … Manufacturing industry is one of our greatest national assets … Compete on a level basis with the rest of the world … Make pounds for the UK; don't make dollars for other people … Sell abroad and buy at home.


We should all have been encouraged by those statements. I certainly was. At last, I thought, the Government have realised the importance of manufacturing industry, and aerospace in particular, to the future of Britain.
I was encouraged by the report produced by the Select Committee into the British aerospace industry. It hit several nails on their respective heads. The industry is vital to Britain as an exporter and an employer. Aerospace is a net contributor to the balance of trade of some £2.5 billion a year. It is one of those high-value-added industries where Britain has enjoyed—and still enjoys in certain areas—the world lead.
As we have heard, Britain's aerospace industry is the third largest in the world behind the dominant United States and just behind France. However, competition is tough and becoming tougher. To survive in world markets the industry must stay ahead of the competition—and to do that requires huge amounts of investment in research and in technology acquisition.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which lobbied Parliament today, points out that British manufacturers are competing to sell our aircraft in an overcrowded market. They are competing against manufacturers from Brazil, France, Italy, the United States, Canada, Korea, Spain, Germany, Holland and Sweden, all of which are in direct receipt of Government support.
Our competitors understand that competition is fierce. In October, Germany announced an eight-point strategic programme for the improvement of basic conditions for aerospace in Germany. The United States Federal Government are investing billions of dollars in aerospace and they are increasing their support. NASA's 1994 aeronautical research and development programme is up by 18 per cent. to more than $1 billion. The United States Defence Department spends $37 billion, of which more than 50 per cent. is applicable to aerospace technologies. The dual-use technology budget in 1994 is $964 million, linking the best of America's defence and commercial sectors. As we have already heard, President Clinton has announced an additional $17 billion of support for technology between 1994 and 1997.
The most worrying feature of the aerospace industry is that it is widely believed that Japan has taken the strategic decision to produce an entire aircraft by 2015. Only a fool would bet against it achieving that aim, bearing in mind its success in world markets with cars, televisions, videos, hi-fi and computers. Other competitors are also building up their aerospace industries—for example, Taiwan and Indonesia.
With the background of the Select Committee report and after hearing the Prime Minister's encouraging words, I awaited the Budget with great interest. I hoped that, at last, the Government would take responsibility for mapping out a strategy for the future support of the aerospace industry. That is important because exactly the opposite has happened during recent years. Since 1974, Government support under the civil aircraft research and demonstration programme for the aerospace industry has fallen in real terms, on 1993 figures, from £87 million per year to £20 million per year.
Yet what happened in the Budget? Nothing. There was no vision for the future, no statement of direction, no tangible support for the industry—it was as though those who spoke at the conference were different people from those who speak in this House. Frankly, that is of great

concern to those who work in the industry and to those of us who represent constituencies with a long tradition of involvement in aerospace.
There was a time when Government felt and demonstrated responsibility for the future of industries in Britain. By any standard, aerospace is one of our key industries. As I have already said, it is one of the few that has a positive effect on the balance of payments —more than £2.5 billion. It also employs large numbers of skilled people in well-paid, high-value-added jobs. Sadly, during recent years the number of people employed has fallen and is continuing to fall—35,000 jobs have been lost since 1985.
Part of that reduction is due to improvements in productivity and the use of technology in the design and manufacturing process. However, part is also due to the lack of direction and Government support for an industry that is becoming increasingly competitive worldwide. The Government are not supporting our aerospace industry in the same way as the Governments of our major competitors are supporting their industries in the USA, France, Germany, Canada and, increasingly, the far east.
The Select Committee's report supported the view of the Department of Trade and Industry's aviation committee on what needs to be done to maintain the industry's technological competitiveness. That was set out by the aviation committee in the form of a national strategic technology acquisition plan—NSTAP—which the Minister accepted on 20 July. The key recommendation of the Select Committee's report was recommendation 19—

Mr. Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman said that the Minister accepted the NSTAP report on 20 July. It might be better if he corrected that statement and said that the principle was accepted—the Government have still not said how the recommendations in the report are to be funded.

Mr. Jones: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. In fact, the former president of the Bristol chamber of commerce, Alex Ewens, wrote in the Western Daily Press
on 19 November:
The DTI has decided to adopt the principles of NSTAP, but has said nothing about how it is to be funded.
Recommendation 19 of the Select Committee report states:
The Government should set out in much greater detail than hitherto the overall policy framework and view of the industry's future which it intends to guide individual decisions affecting the UK aerospace industry.
That recommendation and, indeed, the whole report was welcomed by the industry.
Sir Barry Duxbury, director of the Society of British Aerospace Companies—the SBAC—the trade association for the aerospace industry, said in a news release dated 21
July 1993:
This report proves that parliamentarians across the political spectrum are keen to take a long-term view of manufacturing industry. It also proves that the House of Commons does want to address the important issues that will determine our country's ability to pay for its social aspirations.
Sadly, following the Government's response to the Committee's report, Sir Barry issued another SBAC release on 10 November stating:
I must say that the Government's response to recommendation 19 was particularly disappointing. This recommendation urged the Government to set out in much greater detail than hitherto, its overall policy framework and view of the industry's


future—in other words, to spell out clearly the strategic thinking, analysis and prioritisation which should guide its policies. Yet the response implied an absence of strategic thinking.
Those were Sir Barry's words, not mine—but I agree.
Britain has some excellent aerospace companies. British Aerospace is by far the largest, Rolls-Royce make the best engines in the world, and there are leading equipment suppliers such as Smiths Industries and Dowty—which have operations in and near my constituency. Dowty supplies the landing gear for the European airbus and won the contract for the A320 in 1983. Supply began three years later in 1986, and repair and overhaul is expected to start in 1994. It is likely that that aircraft will still be flying in 2025 or even 2030.
The Dowty A320 landing gear contract demonstrates the long life of aerospace projects—in that case, 40 years. I am making the point that investment this year will not bring a payback for many years. The Government have a role to play in helping projects through launch aid at the front end of a project, in the research and development years.
The Government should put into action the report's recommendations in full, increase the limited amount of support given to British aerospace companies so that they enjoy a level playing field in competition against countries in which Government support is more extensive, and extend launch aid to the equipment sector. That last point is important because equipment suppliers have been discouraged from applying for launch aid in the past. On page 69 of volume 2 of the report, Dowty states in evidence:
Dowty did not apply for launch aid for its landing gear on the A330-340 in a formal way because we were consistently informed by the DTI that it would not be forthcoming.
Why not?
Aerospace is a global industry. British companies, to succeed in world markets, must innovate and stay ahead of the competition. Although we need to join with our European partners to tackle ambitious projects such as the BFLA so that British companies retain a slice of world business now and in future, and while I welcome the recent link between Dowty and Messier Bugatti, British companies can—with the right support—create wealth and jobs for Britain into the next century.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) introduced the Liberal Democrat alternative to the Budget one week before the Chancellor introduced his Budget. That of my friend mapped out hope for the future and included £400 million in support for scientific research. Part of that was earmarked for aerospace support.
Last Friday, I met Graham Lockyer, managing director of Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear. He estimates that the aerospace industry needs £100 million of support annually, which is rather more than the Government are providing this year. The industry is not asking for cash handouts or to be featherbedded, but wants a flow of orders so that it can produce a flow of supply.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) that the Government should make up their mind on the replacement for the Hercules transport fleet. British companies such as Westland of Yeovil and Dowty Propellers in Cheltenham have already won contracts to supply key equipment to Lockheed for the C130J, one of

the options. Many British Hercules aircraft are aging after decades in service and it is not fair that our service men should be expected to make do with aircraft of old design that have done sterling service for as long as 30 years.
The aerospace industry is not just about jobs today but about job and wealth creation well into the next century. The Government are placing that future in jeopardy. All the warning lights are red, with the fierce and increasing competition from abroad, the high and increasing cost of new products, and a slowdown in orders. This year, for the first time, design engineers have been made redundant. Once design teams are lost, it is virtually impossible to put them back together—and highly expensive if one can.
Aerospace is a global business and the people who work in it are extremely mobile. If there are no jobs for them in Britain, they will go abroad. If they see no long-term future for the industry in Britain, they will go abroad for good. There are competitors who would love to recruit designers from Britain because they are the best in the world. They would be recruiting not just the skills of our people but the world-leading knowledge that they gained in our companies. That would make it even more difficult for British firms to compete.
I urge the Government to act on all 19 of the Committee's recommendations. If they fail to do so, there is a danger that our aerospace industry will contract, jobs will continue to be lost, and we shall suffer a deteriorating balance of payments. I am critical of the Chancellor's Budget. Where were the measures to create wealth for five, 10 or 15 years down the track? We must encourage those companies which are at the leading edge of technology. We must train people to become the designers and the engineers of the future, and they must know that there is a secure, well-paid career ahead of them.
We must face up to the future and invest now; otherwise the future will be bleak. If we fail to act now, I fear that the historians of the next century will write of the British Government of the 1990s: "Where was the strategy? Where was the vision?"

Mr. Phil Gallie: I congratulate the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on a wide-ranging and deep analysis of the aerospace industry and welcome many of the Government's responses. I will pick up in particular three of the recommendations and responses which affect Jetstream aircraft. The company operates from my constituency in Prestwick and was referred to earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson).
Jetstream employs 2,600 people at Prestwick. Redundancy notices have been issued to some 460, and a further 130 site contractors are also to go. The situation perhaps reflects the realities of the marketplace and Jetstream, which designs and builds turboprop regional jet aircraft, does not try to hide behind the difficulties of the marketplace. Its preference, without a doubt, is for free markets. However, even with the GATT talks coming to what we all hope will be a successful conclusion, it is unlikely that freedom of the marketplace will be a consequence of that conclusion.
Three major projects are produced by Jetstream, to which I will initially relate my comments on recommendation 8 of the report. One of the projects is the Jetstream 31, which is a real trailblazer: it is a 19-seater aircraft, is the


market leader worldwide and has taken up 36 per cent. of the 12 to 19-seat aircraft market. That has led Jetstream to develop Jetstream 41. It is a 29-seater and it was certificated in record time from the date of its announcement. Jetstream 41 has left the company's rival Dornier, which proposed a similar aircraft at the same time as British Aersospace, standing at the blocks.
Jetstream 41 offers a plane which can meet all the performance criteria of its competitors in speed, range and payload and, above all, meet them at what is recognised to be the lowest cost on the market—the lowest cost without a substantial subsidy. It has real potential. The Jetstream 41 and 31 programmes have received some Government support. Some £11 million has been given through regional selective assistance, regional development and training grants. However, there have been almost 400 sales, which has provided earnings of about $2 billion.
That means that Jetstream has paid to the Exchequer in taxes some £64 million, which, when the £11 million grant is taken into account, leaves it as a net contributor to the British economy accounting for some £53 million. That does not take account of the wealth that has been generated in Ayrshire, in Scotland generally and throughout the United Kingdom. Many companies throughout the United Kingdom assist and supply the Jetstream projects.
Recently, Jetstream failed to win an order from Sky West, an American company, for some 20 aircraft. That was despite the fact that it was recognised that the Jetstream product was liable to have the lowest cost. The competitor, Embraer of Brazil, used the Proex system of subsidy and was able to discount its aircraft by between 12 and 15 per cent. Its aircraft were thus $1 million cheaper than anything Jetstream could possibly compete with.
That brings me to recommendation 8 of the report. There is a suggestion that the United Kingdom Government should make comparisons between the levels of subsidies offered here and those offered overseas. In the example to which I referred, that would be very helpful.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, for once, I agree with everything that he has said? I hope that that does not upset him too much and does not do him too much harm back home. Does he agree that he and all Ayrshire Members made those points when they met the Minister for Industry? Does he also accept that we were all a little disappointed by the lack of urgency that the Minister brought to the point? Will the hon. Gentleman join me in hoping that the Minister for Industry has now appreciated the seriousness of the situation in Prestwick and that he will deal with these matters rather more vigorously in his reply tonight than he dealt with them at our meeting last month?

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman may agree with all that I have said today, but I will hold back a little my total agreement with him on the issue. I was slightly disappointed by some of the things that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry said to me on that occasion. However, when I spoke to him later, he gave me assurances and said that he would meet the managing director of Jetstream. He assured me that if he received additional information, the issues would be addressed positively. I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend will do that in due course. I accept that it was necessary to provide additional information.
Let us consider the facts behind the Brazilian offer in respect of Embraer. The salt is rubbed in when I discover that we have been providing technical aid to Brazil through our overseas aid programmes and through international debt write-off. Ministers must consider that aspect. I am in favour of overseas aid, but it must be provided reasonably. I do not expect it to bounce back and kick us in the teeth, as it has on this occasion. I am concerned about the fact that a further order of 20 aircraft is probably coming up. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minster will address that issue and ensure that the same conditions do not prevail the next time round.
Prestwick has recently taken on the advanced turbo-prop programme. It picked up a considerable number of problems, but the designers are coming to grips with them. Indeed, British Airways has commended those designers on the way in which they have tackled some of the long-standing problems of the ATP. The intention is to turn the ATP into the new Jetstream 61 which will compete—and I am confident will beat—the ATR 72, which has the majority market share in the 60-seater market.
The Government have provided assistance through regional aid through the Scottish Office. To date, no payments have been made, but with the successful transfer of the ATP to Prestwick, I believe that that payment is now due. When we consider the range of aircraft that Jetstream needs to build if it is to stay in that sector of the market, it is clear that there are gaps in the 50-seater and 70-seater ranges. In those respects, Jetstream needs, and is looking for, partners. At the same time, it will need assistance with launch aid, about which we have heard much tonight.
I now refer to recommendation 10. We are aware that launch aid is dependent on GATT, which suggests that a third of relevant costs can be met in launch aid provision. That reflects one third of the costs associated with the development of aircraft above the 100-seater range. One can compare the development costs and profitability of smaller aircraft. Larger aircraft are restricted to one third support payments. I query whether it would be possible, under existing arrangements, to go above one third launch aid support for aircraft beneath the 100-seater range. That would be a great benefit to Jetstream.
When we consider the potential market for aircraft in that range, we must acknowledge that any money brought forward initially by Government support for projects such as the Jetstream 61 and 51 and, some day, the 71 will be well spent if the returns are as good as they have been in respect of the Jetstream 31 and 41. I am confident that, with the knowledge, capability and design expertise in Jetstream at Prestwick, such good returns can certainly be achieved.
Recommendation 13 of the Trade and Industry Select Committee report refers to the Ministry of Defence procurement programme. I was particularly pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement here. Not long ago, he met me and the managing director of Jetstream to consider the Department's trainer provision, currently T30s and T31s.

Mr. Brian Donohoe: Has anything come of that meeting with the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, given that it is the wish of the Jetstream management and the work force that an order be placed by the Ministry of Defence to replace old aircraft?

Mr. Gallie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Ministry of Defence officials have met people


from Jetstream at Prestwick to discuss those issues. A paper was tabled which laid down what Jetstream considered to be some long-term financial advantages. I am not aware of the final conclusions, but I should like at least to think that the Ministry of Defence and Jetstream can find a solution that will benefit them both.
On free trade, Britain cannot be unilateralist. Therefore, I again refer to my first point and ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry to analyse every aspect of the subsidies which operate in the international aviation market and ensure that Jetstream can compete on a level playing field.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor mentioned a 20-seater aircraft tax exemption to be applied to travellers within the United Kingdom. Given the current situation, and given the sort of aircraft that service the highlands and islands, it would be reasonable to extend that tax relief to 70-seater aircraft. That, above all, would help Jetstream with its excellent project.
My final point relates to the export credit guarantees on Jetstream 31 and 41 aircraft. If the time elements of seven and 10 years were extended to 12 years, it would be a great boost to the excellent products manufactured by Jetstream at Prestwick.

Mr. Adam Ingram: I am only the second member of the Select Committee to participate in this debate. I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) and pay tribute to the clerks and staff of the Committee, and to the specialist advisers. Undoubtedly, they assisted us in producing a report that has been warmly welcomed by everyone connected with the aerospace industry, other than the Department of Trade and Industry.
Given the time scale I now face, I hope to comment on the Government's response to the report. It is interesting to note that not one Tory member of the Select Committee is present in the House tonight. It is also interesting to note that Scottish National party Members are not present either, although more than 8,000 manufacturing jobs in Scotland are tied up in the aerospace industry.
The British aerospace industry is vital to UK plc. It is one of the high-value industries and is a major contributor to employment in a high-skill, high-wage sector, exports and technology. More important, the industry is vital to the regions of the United Kingdom. Until last year, Rolls-Royce was the largest manufacturing employer in my constituency of East Kilbride. It has now gone down the pecking list to become the second largest manufacturing employer. It has dropped thousands of jobs over the years.
I do not have time to go into the background of Rolls-Royce, but it is no exaggeration to say that there is extreme nervousness among the work force at East Kilbride and the sister plant at Hillingdon in Glasgow. Certainly, the work force are critical of the company but they have a certain understanding of the dilemma and difficulties that it faces. However, the workers do not have confidence in the Government and the way in which they approach such a crucial industry.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) had spoken in the debate,

he would have referred to the situation at British Aerospace at Prestwick. I am sure that he would have made a similar comment about the Rolls-Royce workers in Glasgow and East Kilbride. Those workers have no confidence whatever in the Government. They know that the industry is doing its best and the company is fighting hard in a competitive market without the Government's support.
We have a lot to be proud of in Britain's aerospace industry, but we have more to be concerned about for the future. Engineers do not live on history alone. One message game across loud and clear in all the evidence given by aerospace manufacturers in the United Kingdom and the main suppliers—there is a need for a coherent Government strategy for the aerospace industry if the country's relative international strength in aerospace technology is to survive beyond the end of this decade and into the next century.
Every company that gave evidence to the Committee—Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace, Short Brothers, GEC, Dowty, Westland, the major trade associations, the Electronic Engineering Association and the Society of British Aerospace Companies—highlighted the growing concern about the near crisis in the industry.
There is no doubt that the industry is suffering, and will continue to suffer, because of the Government-created UK recession, the international recession and the effects of the massive and largely unpredictable downturn in defence expenditure world-wide. Uniquely among our competitors, that suffering is compounded in the United Kingdom industry by an indifferent and unsupportive Government. The Americans, French, Germans, Japanese and the emerging aerospace economies in Taiwan, Indonesia and Brazil all have the active support of their Governments. Those Governments recognise the long-term planning and investment horizons, which are an integral feature of aerospace technology, and assist their home-based companies accordingly. It is only in the United Kingdom that the view remains within Government that they should have a hands-off approach and that the market should dictate the future developments of this most strategic of industries.
The difference in strategy between, say, the United Kingdom and the United States could not be more stark. The DTI and the Government dither about what to do with the Select Committee report and the fears and worries of the British aerospace industry, while at the same time cutting the support that they give the industry. Compare that with the United States aerospace industry. One of the first steps of the incoming Clinton Government was to lay down a revised technology and investment plan, committing more than $17 billion for the period 1994 to 1997. The bulk of that will be of direct benefit to the United States aerospace industry. By comparison, our Government are cutting support to one of our crucial industries.
In its evidence to the Committee, Shorts, which I mentioned earlier, highlighted the difference in approach between this country and competitor countries. It told the Committee that it knows, from particular collaborative projects in which it has been involved, that significantly higher levels of financial assistance are available in the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain, Canada and Japan than are available to it.

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ingram: No. The hon. Gentleman took enough time, and I am not going to give him more time.
I am sure that the chief executive of Dowty spoke for the whole United Kingdom aerospace industry when he told the Committee that the company was up against not just competitors but other Governments.
The tragedy is that the United Kingdom Government are rapidly becoming one of those Governments that the United Kingdom industry is up against. It is for that reason that the Committee laid down its 19 recommendations. The report was unanimous. There was a Conservative majority on the Committee and 19 recommendations set out what the Committee thought was necessary for the future of the United Kingdom aerospace industry.
The recommendations fell into two main categories. The first concerned the need for public money to be allocated to the industry. That public investment should be targeted in two key areas—implementation of the national strategic technology acquisition plan, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central spoke of in detail, and an improved allocation of launch aid for specific projects.
The other key area dealt with the need for a coherent strategy. I shall make two brief points about NSTAP and launch aid. NSTAP is not an over-ambitious concept, nor is it greedy in its demand for public funds. It is calling for £1 billion to be invested in this strategic industry over 10 years. I see the grocer on the Government Front Bench smiling. The Minister does not understand how important investment in those industries is. That request for investment would be matched by the industry itself. It must be set against the $17 billion which was mentioned earlier, and which has been laid down for a four-year period in the United States.
Given the time constraints on me, I shall conclude by saying that I wanted to mention in detail the letters that Rolls-Royce sent to members of the Committee and to hon. Members who are interested in the industry. However, I draw the Minister's attention to a letter that refers to the importance of the recommendations in relation to the NSTAP report and to launch aid. Rolls-Royce is not a company with its hands out, greedily dipping into the taxpayer's pocket. It contributed greatly to the well-being of the country. If the Minister has not already read that letter, it would be well worth him taking the time to do so.
Another comment was made about the Select Committee's report. Recommendation 19 set out a request, which was not over-radical, for a coherent strategy for the industry. The response from the Minister and the DTI was nothing short of scandalous. It is worth repeating a quote about that response. It is little wonder that Sir Barry Duxbury of the Society of British Aerospace Companies retorted:
Yet the response implied an absence of strategic thinking.
That absence has major implications for tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. If the Government do not decide soon what they will do, we shall not have an industry left that is able to compete with the best in the rest of the world. We have only a short time scale in which to do that. I shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply to the Select Committee report.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I congratulate the Chairman and members of the Committee on their excellent report. The maintenance of a successful United

Kingdom aerospace industry is of even greater importance to Northern Ireland than it is to Great Britain, although that importance has been outlined by hon. Members with constituency interests on the mainland.
Short's of Belfast is the oldest aircraft manufacturing company in the world. It was founded by the three Short brothers at the beginning of the century. It was in Government ownership from 1943 until it was privatised in 1989 and then acquired by Bombardier. Since privatisation, almost £200 million has been invested in a programme of re-equipping and modernisation. That programme is nearing completion. Annual sales have doubled. The company has returned to profitability and, as Northern Ireland's largest employer, with more than 7,000 employees and approximately 3,000 jobs among local suppliers, its growth reflects Short's success.
The company manufactures the Short's Tucano military trainer under licence and designs and manufactures aircraft components and structures for Boeing, Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace, Fokker, Lear Jet, Canadair and others. Most of Short's business is based on international collaboration with other Bombardier aerospace companies, including a partnership with Fokker and Deutsche Aerospace on the Fokker 100 aircrft, joint ventures with Hurel-Dubois for engine nacelles and with Thompson in missiles. The design and manufacture of guided weapons systems for very short-range air defence remains a profitable aspect of Short's business.
Since privatisation, the company has made rapid progress as a result of focused investment and radically improved manufacturing processes. Its competitiveness and capability within the aerospace industry has never been better. The company is in a sound position to cope with the recession in the commercial aircraft industry and the decline in military orders, but today's strength could be threatened in the long term unless there is closer co-operation between the Government and the British aerospace industry as a whole in the immediate future.
The United Kingdom industry is crying out for a national plan to maintain the United Kingdom's technological advantage. Adequate levels of Government support for research and development, launch aid and other investments is essential to safeguard the industry in the future. The investment programme at Short's, the process improvements, freedom to harness the skills, effort and enthusiasm of the work force and competitiveness in a commercial environment have made Short's the best cost producer in the Bombardier aerospace empire. Since privatisation, the company is putting more and more business into Northern Ireland through its local support development progamme.
I have some questions for the Minister. Have the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence got the same level of commitment as the United Kingdom aerospace industry to maintaining that industry at the leading edge and in a position of strength in world markets? Have the DTI, the MOD and the Treasury reached an agreement yet with the United Kingdom aerospace industry on the long-term future plans for that industry? Do the Government accept that there should be a national technology acquisition plan? What proposals does the DTI have to support and encourage the United Kingdom aerospace industry to continue to invest, even through recession, in new project development and new


technology acquisition to prevent our international competitors from achieving advantage through their on-going investment programmes?

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) and his Committee on producing the unanimous report. Those of us who have sat through the whole debate have seen that unanimity reflected in every comment. It will not be unique that the only discordant voices will be from the Government Benches, when all the arguments made by the Minister's hon. Friends and my hon. Friends will be ignored and the Government's line that it should all be left to market forces will be repeated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) made two important points, about the GATT negotations and about the aerospace industry. I am sure that all hon. Members feel that we need transparency in the aerospace industry—particularly in view of the American subsidies—or the European industry will be placed at a considerable disadvantage. I hope that the Government, through the European Union, will take a strong line on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley also mentioned the skills needed in the aerospace industry and those that have already been developed. A key aspect of this important industry is not just its contribution to the balance of payments or that it is a high-tech industry, but that it is one of the most highly skilled industries in the country, if not the highest. Some 40 per cent. of the country's skilled and technical personnel are employed in the aerospace or aerospace-related industry. We cannot afford to lose that skilled manpower and investment, and my hon. Friend was right to draw that to our attention.
The hon. Member for Ayre (Mr. Gallie) made a cogent case for public intervetion and mentioned the spin-off that it has for the public and private sectors. It is a rare occasion, but his contribution is worth another look. I suggest that he reads it again, because he will find that, instead of somebody who strongly believes in the market, he is sombody who believes strongly in public intervention.
The hon. Member for Ayr made a very strong case for Jetstream showed his concern for it. His concern is shared by my hon. Friends the Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe). They also support the Committee's recommendation in relation to launch aid and the need for public expenditure in that respect.
Two key issues came out of the debate. The first was defence procurement and the extent to which the aerospace industry relies on it. In paragraph 108 of the Select Committee's report, an unnamed witness from GEC made comments which strongly sum up the arguments in favour of some system of defence diversification:
if we are not careful, almost a classic recipe for eventual run-down and decline of the aerospace industry, because the Ministry of Defence is, in aerospace terms, the main procurer/buyer without having the responsibility for the health of the industry. The DTI, of course, has responsibility for the health but has not got the clout to actually do anything about it.
That summarises the problem between our commitment to defence and the rundown in defence expenditure. The hon.

Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made an interesting contribution about defence procurement and the role for the Government, but, along with every other speaker, he recognised the important point that defence expenditure will decline in the future.
When one compares the comments made to the Select Committee by a representative of GEC with the response from the Minister, it is clear that there is a great gulf between the attitude expressed by one of our leading companies and that of the Government. The Minister said that matters should simply be left to the market. He said it was up to individual companies to sort out their own futures.
No one would accuse GEC of being a socialist organisation or of being anti-market. It is clear, however, that that company has recognised something that the Government are either too blind or too stupid to see, because it appreciates that the Government have a role to play if we are to keep the skills and technology that are tied up in the aerospace industry. President Clinton and other Heads of Government have recognised that, but our Government believe that matters should simply be left to the market.
I hope that, even at this late hour, the Minister for Industry will recognise that the Government should make a different response to the calls from industry and that they should recognise the importance of skills and technology. At the end of the debate, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central and all those who supported him in the Select Committee and in the House tonight, that the Government accept their responsibility to help those companies that rely on defence orders to diversify their skills and technologies into new civilian-based activities.
The first issue to consider is defence procurement and its future. The second issue is the role of the Government and their responsibilities. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) was right to say that our defence industry competes not only against other foreign industries, but against their Governments. The key issue that we must recognise is that, as my hon. Friend said, this is a global industry in which the players are not simply companies, because in every other country the players are companies and Governments working together.
The key passage in the Select Committee report is contained in four paragraphs on pages 38 and 39 that discuss the role of Government support. It is worth reminding ourselves that that report is an all-party document and that its recommendations are unanimous. Each of them suggests to the Government that there must be greater public support for various activities relating to the aerospace industry. The reasons set out in those four paragraphs are understood by everyone except the Minister. Everyone else is aware that the British aerospace industry, in common with every other aerospace industry, needs long-term investment in research and development. The financial market cannot satisfy those needs, so the answer must be for the Government to adopt a more proactive role. Labour and Conservative members of the Select Committee recognised the need for additional expenditure.
Apart from funding, hon. Members have also identified another problem that confronts British industry and British aerospace industries in particular. Those industries suffer from one other crucial weakness: they simply do not know


where the Government are going strategically. There is no clear definition of the relationship between Government and industry.
I know that that may come as a surprise to you, Madam Speaker. I also know that you read widely, and I am sure that you read the publication of the President of the Board of Trade on politics and industry, which appeared when he was going around the rubber chicken circuit, running his campaign against the then Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman said in that work that the aerospace industry was the key industry that Government had to support and with which they should define a proper role.
That is the view of the President of the Board of Trade. Unfortunately, he did not seem to have gone from one office to another in the Department of Trade and Industry to explain that role to the Minister of State who is now responsible. It is so clear and frustrating and comes out in the evidence and conclusions of the Select Committee report, that British industrialists do not know what the Government expect or what they can expect of the Government. We often hear the phrase that we need a level playing field. The Government cannot define the playing field because they feel that they have no responsibility in that direction. We and the Select Committee want the Government to play a clear role in defining their purpose and function in relation to the aerospace industry.
Many questions have been raised, which the Minister would like to answer. What I should like to hear from the Minister—crucial and sadly lacking in any contribution that he makes to this or any other debate—is agreement that we need a strategic view and a vision of partnership between Government and industry and a recognition that that would help and assist an important industry such as British Aerospace. The Committee report has set that out and it is now up to Ministers to live up to that challenge. I fear that they will fail yet again.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I shall begin with three lots of congratulations. First, I congratulate and thank the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on the painstaking and thorough work in its report on the aerospace industry. In the comments that the Committee made on the Government's response, I was pleased to see that we have made "a useful beginning" in translating its recommendations into action. I know that Select Committees are not always so generous to the Government, and for a moment in tonight's debate I thought that that generosity was slipping away. I also congratulate all hon. Members on both sides of the House who have spoken. I hope that what they said has reaffirmed the importance that the House attaches to the industry.
Thirdly, I congratulate the industry itself. In 1992, in the midst of one of the worst downturns in the civil and military aerospace industry since the war, United Kingdom companies continued to perform well with sales of over £10 billion, exports worth £7 billion and a positive balance of trade of well over £2 billion, and was one of the major sources of employment with more than 137,000 employees.
As the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) said, it is something that we are really good at. Plenty of companies in the sector are good examples of world leaders— British Aerospace in military technology and the design of large and advanced wings, Rolls-Royce

plc across a whole range of civil and military engines, GEC, Westland and, as the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) mentioned, Short's, a company that I have visited on more than one occasion and one that has transformed to become among the world leaders in its field.
However, as hon. Members have said, there are problems. There have been job losses and the industry has recently suffered. I share the concern that has been stressed about those who have lost their jobs. Nevertheless, those losses must be placed in context. No person or business is entirely immune to market conditions. That even includes the mighty Boeing company, which recently announced production cuts that will lead to job losses of 3,000 now and of 27,000 by the middle of next year.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Minister say whether the airbus issue has been withdrawn from the GATT talks tonight? Will he tell the House what the latest situation is, as I have a big constituency say in that decision?

Mr. Sainsbury: I know of the hon. Gentleman's constituency interest. I shall come to the GATT situation later. I have been in the House for three years and I do not know how up to date I will be—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I meant three hours: the situation is changing hourly, not just yearly.
Hon. Members will know of many other job losses throughout the world in the industry— times are hard. However, I do not believe that they will remain so for ever or even for long. In those circumstances, obviously the industry must ensure that it emerges from the recession lean, fit and ready to take on the challenges and opportunities of the longer-term growth in the market.
The primary responsibility lies with the industry to restructure, forge international alliances, plan for the future, benchmark itself against its leading competitors and ensure that it operates at peak efficiency. Governments can help by getting the economic climate right, emphasising the need for competitiveness and establishing sensible rules governing world trade such as GATT. Ultimately it is for the industry to ensure its own future by effective management.
There has been a lot of talk today about the overall policy framework. Indeed, much of the Select Committee's work has been to look at what the Government's role is or should be. In its recommendation 19, the Committee asked the Government to set out our overall policy framework in more detail. If the Government are to have a sensible understanding with the aerospace industry of where our and their priorities lies there must be adequate communication between us. Helping United Kingdom business to compete in world markets is our shared objective. Therefore, we shall continue our close dialogue with companies, trade associations and the people of the industry. Within that framework, industry can make clear to us its priorities.
However, we do not believe that it would be sensible for the Government to make a once and for all strategic statement. After all, the Government are not the key player.

Mr. Caborn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Sainsbury: No. I must press on. Time is limited. The Government have a responsibility to set a climate in which industry can prosper by their economic and fiscal policies, by establishing a free and open trade regime and,


in industries such as aerospace where the market finds it difficult to respond to all the industry's needs, by taking specific measures such as launch aid and the civil aircraft research and demonstration programme. It is for industry to take the lead in ensuring that it can win in world markets.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) and several other hon. Members referred to the national strategic technology acquisition plan. The Committee's report placed a great deal of weight on it. The plan was produced by the aviation committee—a useful committee set up to advise the Government. The document is extremely useful and to some extent groundbreaking, as I hope that I made clear last July when I adopted the technological priorities which it contains on behalf of my Department.
By producing the NSTAP when it did, the aeronautics industry has led the way in carrying through the approach to technology foresight and the prioritisation of research and technology which was set out in the Government's science and engineering technology White Paper "Realising our Potential". That is not to say that NSTAP is a simple and self-sufficient list of instructions which one needs only to follow closely to guarantee immediate technological enlightenment.
Although the plan is a detailed and thorough document, a considerable amount of work is needed if it is to be applied in practice. First, the generic categories that it represents are to be broken down into more specific areas of direct application. Secondly, those categories need to be mapped on to the research effort that is already going on, especially in industry, my Department, the Ministry of Defence, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Science and Engineering Research Council, academia and Europe.
Until we are clear about the range of current activity, we cannot identify the gaps and overlaps that may be limiting the effectiveness of our efforts in research and technology acquisition. Such painstaking work is an essential prerequisite in assessing whether extra effort is needed.
In order to achieve this, a working group involving industry, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence, SERC and the Office of Science and Technology is carrying out pilot studies which are intended to refine the analysis in the NSTAP. That involves taking three category 1 technologies, assessing industry's needs in the light of commercial opportunities, relative priorities and benefits to the United Kingdom, and matching the results against existing industry and public sector programmes. Those studies will take some months, after which we can judge the best way to proceed.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Sainsbury: I cannot give way, as time is limited, if the hon. Gentleman will excuse me.
That is not to say that NSTAP has only had an influence in the world of theory and not in the real world. The priorities set out in the plan have served as a guide in the selection of the project to be supported under the second CARAD programme. Those priorities are also helping to define the areas that should be emphasised under the European Community framework 4 programme.
By its very nature, research and technology acquisition does not normally allow for a precise identification of the

appropriate level of resource for any given project. If I may explain by example; we might be seeking to identify an alloy with certain properties. We could have one team in one lab working on the research part time, or several teams in several laboratories working full time. One cannot know in advance whether the first or the second team will arrive at the right answer. The pharmaceutical industry is a good example of that.
However, in CARAD we are not dealing with just one project but a range. My Department's second and third year CARAD programme was rigorously assessed to ensure a clear focus on the priorities that have been identified by the industry. It must be for Government to determine the priorities between the various demands of industry and the economy as a whole and, therefore, the resources to be allocated to CARAD.
We take fully into account the importance of the industry, the range of priorities that have been identified, the importance of maintaining our technological competitiveness and the very substantial resources being devoted to research and development for the aerospace industry by that industry, the Ministry of Defence and other publicly funded science and technology programmes in Whitehall, the science base and Europe.
It is against that background that I have to tell the House that I do not believe that any reliable or precise estimate can be made of the right level of public support for research and technology acquisition. It is a matter of judgment in the light of all the circumstances and subject to regular review as those circumstances change. Indeed, the very process of review, involving close liaison between my Department, the industry and other organisations, is building the partnership that we need to bring the NSTAP priorities to fruition and hence to influence the research priorities in industry, Whitehall, defence, the science base and Europe.
In the limited time available I do not intend to comment directly on the Government's role as a customer. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. However, as hon. Members will have seen, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has been present and has noted what has been said.
Some hon. Members have spoken—notably the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett)—as if the Government did nothing for the industry. So I make no apology for running once again through the support that the industry already enjoys, since it is the envy of many other equally significant sectors.
Since 1979, we have made available more than £1.5 billion in launch aid, regional development grants and support for research and development programmes. The Export Credits Guarantee Department has provided £735 million in export credit guarantees during the past three years. Launch aid is unique to the aerospace industry, which is the only sector with its own dedicated DTI research budget. The House should recognise the considerable scale of support that the industry has had and continues to enjoy.
The GATT Uruguay round has been mentioned and it is reaching what seems to be a nail-biting conclusion. We have been actively working, through the EC and directly, to press for more equitable and comprehensive disciplines on the trade in civil aircraft, their engines and equipment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) mentioned Jetstream. I know that he takes a great interest in that company and I look forward to meeting him and the


managing director later this week. Jetstream has made it clear that job losses were necessary to improve productivity, reduce costs and reflect present demand. Prestwick has benefited from previous Government assistance and substantial regional selective assistance is on offer from the Scottish Office for future development. Jetstream's current problems arise from the weakness in the market and the world-wide overcapacity and not from the lack of Government support. They are seeking a more international, collaborative partner to put their business on a sounder footing, and we are supporting the company when asked to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr mentioned the subsidies received by others. We must act, within international rules, to challenge subsidies offered to overseas competitors. That does not always bring quick results. Jetstream met my Department last week to discuss its evidence and we are continuing to discuss how best to pursue the matter.
At the start of my speech I paid tribute to the industry. It has received considerable support from the Government and we shall continue to support it. It is one of our leading exports; it provides employment throughout the country; and it stands at the leading edge of technology. We should celebrate its success, and I am pleased to do so tonight.
I apologise to those hon. Members who have made points to which I have not responded. I shall read the debate and I hope to respond to them in writing. I apologise for the shortness of time and I am grateful to those hon. Members who contributed to the debate.

It being Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).

MADAM SPEAKER, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates), put the deferred Questions on Supplementary Estimates, 1993–94 (Class II, Vote 2 and Class IV, Vote 2).

Class II, Vote 2

Question put,
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £98,121,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31 March 1994 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on grants and subscriptions etc. to certain international organisations, special payments and assistance, scholarships, military aid and sundry other grants and services:——

The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 54.

Division No. 26]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Batiste, Spencer


Aitken, Jonathan
Beggs, Roy


Alexander, Richard
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bellingham, Henry


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bendall, Vivian


Amess, David
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arbuthnot, James
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Booth, Hartley


Ashby, David
Boswell, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Atkins, Robert
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bowden, Andrew


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Bowis, John


Baldry, Tony
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Brandreth, Gyles


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brazier, Julian


Bates, Michael
Bright, Graham





Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hague, William


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burns, Simon
Hannam, Sir John


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butcher, John
Harris, David


Butler, Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Butterfill, John
Hawkins, Nick


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Heald, Oliver


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hendry, Charles


Carrington, Matthew
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Hicks, Robert


Cash, William
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Churchill, Mr
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clappison, James
Horam, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Congdon, David
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Conway, Derek
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunter, Andrew


Cormack, Patrick
Jack, Michael


Couchman, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Cran, James
Jessel, Toby


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kellet-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dorrell, Stephen
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
Kilfedder, Sir James


Duncan, Alan
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kirkwood, Archy


Dunn, Bob
Knapman, Roger


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Faber, David
Legg, Barry


Fabricant, Michael
Leigh, Edward


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lidington, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Luff, Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lyell, Rt Hon sir Nicholas


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lynne, Ms Liz


French, Douglas
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fry, Peter
Mackay, Andrew


Gale, Roger
Maclean, David


Gallie, Phil
Maclennan, Robert


Gardiner, Sir George
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Garnier, Edward
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Gill, Christopher
Madel, David


Gillan, Cheryl
Maitland, Lady Olga


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Malone, Gerald


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mans, Keith


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marlow, Tony


Gorst, John
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian






Mellor, Rt Hon David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Merchant, Piers
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Milligan, Stephen
Spink, Dr Robert


Mills, Iain
Spring, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sproat, Iain


Moate, Sir Roger
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Moss, Malcolm
Steen, Anthony


Needham, Richard
Stephen, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Stern, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Streeter, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sumberg, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sykes, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Ottaway, Richard
Thomason, Roy


Page, Richard
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Paice, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patnick, Irvine
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thurnham, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pawsey, James
Townsend, Cyrill D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Pickles, Eric
Tracey, Richard


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tredinnick, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Trend, Michael


Powell, William (Corby)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tyler, Paul


Rendel, David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Viggers, Peter


Richards, Rod
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Riddick, Graham
Walden, George


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Robathan, Andrew
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Waterson, Nigel


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Watts, John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wells, Bowen


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Whitney, Ray


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Whittingdale, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Sackville, Tom
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wilkinson, John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Willetts, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wood, Timothy


Shersby, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Sims, Roger
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Skeet, Sir Trevor



Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Soames, Nicholas
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Speed, Sir Keith





NOES


Ainger, Nick
Foulkes, George


Bayley, Hugh
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Callaghan, Jim
Gunnell, John


Cann, Jamie
Hain, Peter


Coffey, Ann
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Ingram, Adam


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dixon, Don
Jowell, Tessa


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Terry


Donohoe, Brian H.
Litherland, Robert


Dowd, Jim
McKelvey, William


Eastham, Ken
McMaster, Gordon


Etherington, Bill
Maxton, John


Fatchett, Derek
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flynn, Paul
Miller, Andrew


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Morgan, Rhodri





Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Spearing, Nigel


Mowlam, Marjorie
Vaz, Keith


Mudie, George
Watson, Mike


Mullin, Chris
Welsh, Andrew


O'Hara, Edward
Wilson, Brian


Paisley, Rev Ian
Winnick, David


Prescott, John



Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Michael Clapham.

Question agreed to.

Class IV, Vote 2

Question put,
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31 March 1994 for expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry on regional development grants, exchange risk and other losses, selective assistance to individual industries and firms, United Kingdom contributions arising from its commitments under the International Natural Rubber Agreement, a strategic mineral stockpile, support for the aerospace and shipbuilding industries, assistance to redundant steel and coal workers, for expenditure related to petroleum licensing and royalty, for other payments and for loans to trading funds.

The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 72.

Division No. 27]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Carttiss, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Cash, William


Alexander, Richard
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Churchill, Mr


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clappison, James


Amess, David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, James
Coe, Sebastian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Congdon, David


Ashby, David
Conway, Derek


Aspinwall, Jack
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Atkins, Robert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Cormack, Patrick


Baldry, Tony
Couchman, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cran, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bates, Michael
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Batiste, Spencer
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Beggs, Roy
Day, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bendall, Vivian
Devlin, Tim


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dorrell, Stephen


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dover, Den


Booth, Hartley
Duncan, Alan


Boswell, Tim
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bowden, Andrew
Dykes, Hugh


Bowis, John
Eggar, Tim


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bright, Graham
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evennett, David


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Faber, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Budgen, Nicholas
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burns, Simon
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Burt, Alistair
Fishburn, Dudley


Butcher, John
Forman, Nigel


Butler, Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Butterfill, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carrington, Matthew
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger






French, Douglas
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Fry, Peter
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gale, Roger
Mates, Michael


Gallie, Phil
Mawhinney, Dr Brain


Gardiner, Sir George
Merchant, Piers


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Milligan, Stephen


Garnier, Edward
Mills, Iain


Gill, Christopher
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gillan, Cheryl
Moate, Sir Roger


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Monro, Sir Roger


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gorst, John
Moss, Malcolm


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Needham, Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hague, William
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Norris, Steve


Hampson, Dr Keith
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hannam, Sir John
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hargreaves, Andrew
Ottaway, Richard


Harris, David
Page, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Paice, James


Hawkins, Nick
Patnick, Irvine


Hawksley, Warren
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heald, Oliver
Pawsey, James


Hendry, Charles
Pickles, Eric


Hicks, Robert
Porter, David (Waveney)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Horam, John
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Richards, Rod


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Riddick, Graham


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Robathan, Andrew


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hunter, Andrew
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jessel, Toby
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, David (Dover)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shersby, Michael


Knapman, Roger
Sims, Roger


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Knox, Sir David
Soames, Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Speed, Sir Keith


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spink, Dr Robert


Legg, Barry
Spring, Richard


Leigh, Edward
Sproat, Iain


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lidington, David
Steen, Anthony


Lightbown, David
Stephen, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stern, Michael


Lord, Michael
Streeter, Gary


Luff, Peter
Sumberg, David


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sweeney, Walter


Maclean, David
Sykes, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Madel, David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Malone, Gerald
Thomason, Roy


Mans, Keith
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Marlow, Tony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm





Thurnham, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Whittingdale, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Widdecombe, Ann


Tracey, Richard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Tredinnick, David
Wilkinson, John


Trend, Michael
Willetts, David


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Viggers, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Walden, George
Wood, Timothy


Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Yeo, Tim


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Waller, Gary



Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waterson, Nigel
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Watts, John
Mr. Andrew Mackay.


Wells, Bowen





NOES


Bayley, Hugh
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Boyes, Roland
Jowell, Tessa


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Kirkwood, Archy


Callaghan, Jim
Lewis, Terry


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Litherland, Robert


Cann, Jamie
Lynne, Ms Liz


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
McCartney, Ian


Coffey, Ann
McKelvey, William


Corbyn, Jeremy
Maclennan, Robert


Cryer, Bob
McMaster, Gordon


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Martlew, Eric


Dewar, Donald
Maxton, John


Dixon, Don
Meale, Alan


Dobson, Frank
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Dowd, Jim
Miller, Andrew


Eastham, Ken
Morgan, Rhodri


Enright, Derek
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Etherington, Bill
Mudie, George


Fatchett, Derek
Mullin, Chris


Fisher, Mark
O'Hara, Edward


Flynn, Paul
Paisley, Rev Ian


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Rendel, David


Foulkes, George
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Fyfe, Maria
Salmond, Alex


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Gunnell, John
Tyler, Paul


Hain, Peter
Watson, Mike


Hinchliffe, David
Welsh, Andrew


Hoyle, Doug
Wilson, Brian


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Winnick, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Illsley, Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Ingram, Adam
Mr. Dennis Skinner and


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Mr. Michael Clapham.

Question agreed to.

MADAM SPEAKER then put forthwith the Questions which she was directed to put, pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.).

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1993–94

Question put,
That a further supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,061,483,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 2 of Session 1993–94.

The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 53.

Division No. 28]
[10.27 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)


Aitken, Jonathan
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)


Alexander, Richard
Amess, David






Arbuthnot, James
Fabricant, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Ashby, David
Fishburn, Dudley


Aspinwall, Jack
Forman, Nigel


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Baldry, Tony
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bates, Michael
French, Douglas


Batiste, Spencer
Fry, Peter


Beggs, Roy
Gale, Roger


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Gallie, Phil


Bellingham, Henry
Gardiner, Sir George


Bendall, Vivian
Garnier, Edward


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gill, Christopher


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gillan, Cheryl


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Booth, Hartley
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boswell, Tim
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bowis, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brandreth, Gyles
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brazier, Julian
Hague, William


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hannam, Sir John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Harris, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Haselhurst, Alan


Burns, Simon
Hawkins, Nick


Burt, Alistair
Hawksley, Warren


Butcher, John
Heald, Oliver


Butler, Peter
Hendry, Charles


Butterfill, John
Hicks, Robert


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Horam, John


Carrington, Matthew
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cash, William
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Clappison, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hunter, Andrew


Coe, Sebastian
Jenkin, Bernard


Colvin, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Congdon, David
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Conway, Derek
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Kellet-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Couchman, James
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Cran, James
Key, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Kirkwood, Archy


Devlin, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dover, Den
Knox, Sir David


Duncan, Alan
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dunn, Bob
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Dykes, Hugh
Legg, Barry


Eggar, Tim
Leigh, Edward


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lidington, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lightbown, David


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Faber, David
Lord, Michael





Luff, Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Soames, Nicholas


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Spencer, Sir Derek


Madel, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spink, Dr Robert


Malone, Gerald
Spring, Richard


Mans, Keith
Sproat, Iain


Marlow, Tony
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Steen, Anthony


Mates, Michael
Stephen, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stern, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Streeter, Gary


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Sumberg, David


Milligan, Stephen
Sweeney, Walter


Mills, Iain
Sykes, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moate, Sir Roger
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Moss, Malcolm
Thomason, Roy


Needham, Richard
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Nicholls, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Norris, Steve
Tracey, Richard


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Tredinnick, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trend, Michael


Ottaway, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Richard
Tyler, Paul


Paice, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Paisley, Rev Ian
Viggers, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Walden, George


Pawsey, James
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Pickles, Eric
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waller, Gary


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Powell, William (Corby)
Waterson, Nigel


Rendel, David
Watts, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wells, Bowen


Richards, Rod
Whitney, Ray


Riddick, Graham
Whittingdale, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Robathan, Andrew
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wilkinson, John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Willetts, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wolfson, Mark


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wood, Timothy


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Yeo, Tim


Sackville, Tom
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim



Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. Irvine Patnick, and


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Robert G. Hughes.




NOES


Barnes, Harry
Dixon, Don


Bayley, Hugh
Donohoe, Brian H.


Boyes, Roland
Dowd, Jim


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Callaghan, Jim
Eastham, Ken


Cann, Jamie
Enright, Derek


Clapham, Michael
Etherington, Bill


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Flynn, Paul


Coffey, Ann
Foulkes, George


Corbyn, Jeremy
Fyfe, Maria


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Hain, Peter


Dewar, Donald
Hinchliffe, David






Hoyle, Doug
McMaster, Gordon


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Martlew, Eric


Illsley, Eric
Maxton, John


Ingram, Adam
Meale, Alan


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Healey)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Miller, Andrew


Litherland, Robert
Morgan, Rhodri


McCartney, Ian
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


McKelvey, William
Mudie, George





Mullin, Chris
Wilson, Brian


O'Hara, Edward
Winnick, David


Salmond, Alex



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Walley, Joan
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Watson, Mike
Mr. Terry Lewis.


Welsh, Andrew

Question agreed to.

Estimates, 1994–95 (Vote on Account)

Question put,
That a sum not exceeding £92,463,143,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1995 as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of Session 1993–94.

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 62.

Division No. 29]
[10.39 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aitken, Jonathan
Dover, Den


Alexander, Richard
Duncan, Alan


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Dunn, Bob


Amess, David
Durant, Sir Anthony


Arbuthnot, James
Dykes, Hugh


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Eggar, Tim


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Ashby, David
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evennett, David


Baldry, Tony
Faber, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fabricant, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bates, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Batiste, Spencer
Fishburn, Dudley


Beggs, Roy
Forman, Nigel


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bendall, Vivian
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
French, Douglas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fry, Peter


Booth, Hartley
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Gallie, Phil


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gardiner, Sir George


Bowis, John
Garnier, Edward


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gill, Christopher


Brandreth, Gyles
Gillan, Cheryl


Brazier, Julian
Goodland, Rt Hon Alastair


Bright, Graham
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gorst, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butcher, John
Hague, William


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, Sir John


Carrington, Matthew
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carttiss, Michael
Harris, David


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawkins, Nick


Chapman, Sydney
Hawksley, Warren


Clappison, James
Heald, Oliver


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hendry, Charles


Coe, Sebastian
Hicks, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Congdon, David
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Conway, Derek
Horam, John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cormack, Patrick
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cran, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunter, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jessel, Toby


Devlin, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)





Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Key, Robert
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


King, Rt Hon Tom
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sackville, Tom


Kirkwood, Archy
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knapman, Roger
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, Sir David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shersby, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sims, Roger


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Legg, Barry
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Leigh, Edward
Soames, Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lidington, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lightbown, David
Spring, Richard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sproat, Iain


Lord, Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Luff, Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lynne, Ms Liz
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew
Stephen, Michael


Maclennan, Robert
Stern, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Sweeney, Walter


Madel, David
Sykes, John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thomason, Roy


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mates, Michael
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Merchant, Piers
Thurnham, Peter


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Milligan, Stephen
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mills, Iain
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tredinnick, David


Moate, Sir Roger
Trend, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Twinn, Dr Ian


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tyler, Paul


Moss, Malcolm
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Needham, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Walden, George


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Norris, Steve
Waterson, Nigel


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Watts, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wells, Bowen


Ottaway, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Page, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Paice, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Paisley, Rev Ian
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wilkinson, John


Pawsey, James
Willetts, David


Pickles, Eric
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Powell, William (Corby)
Wood, Timothy


Rendel, David
Yeo, Tim


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Richards, Rod



Riddick, Graham
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Robathan, Andrew
Mr. Michael Brown






NOES


Ainger, Nick
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Armstrong, Hilary
Illsley, Eric


Bayley, Hugh
Ingram, Adam


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Bermingham, Gerald
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Boyes, Roland
Lewis, Terry


Bradley, Keith
McCartney, Ian


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
McKelvey, William


Callaghan, Jim
McMaster, Gordon


Cann, Jamie
Martlew, Eric


Clapham, Michael
Maxton, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Meale, Alan


Coffey, Ann
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Miller, Andrew


Cryer, Bob
Morgan, Rhodri


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Morley, Elliot


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Dewar, Donald
Mudie, George


Dixon, Don
Mullin, Chris


Donohoe, Brian H.
O'Hara, Edward


Dowd, Jim
Pickthall, Colin


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Pike, Peter L.


Eastham, Ken
Salmond, Alex


Etherington, Bill
Skinner, Dennis


Fatchett, Derek
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Fisher, Mark
Walley, Joan


Flynn, Paul
Watson, Mike


Foulkes, George
Welsh, Andrew


Fyfe, Maria
Winnick, David


Godman, Dr Norman A.



Hain, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Hanson, David
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Hoyle, Doug
Mr. Robert Litherland.

Question agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Michael Portillo, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Sir John Cope and Mr. Anthony Nelson.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Mr. Stephen Dorrell accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain funds out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1994 and 1995: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 7.]

Statutory Sick Pay Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred in consequences of the Act by a Minister of the Crown.
The resolution is in a form that will be familiar to the House, so I shall not weary hon. Members with a lengthy explanation of it. Sufficent to say that the Statutory Sick Pay Bill abolishes the right of employers to recover 80 per cent. of statutory sick pay paid to their employees from their remittances of national insurance contributions. It also requires employers to pay statutory sick pay to working women who fall sick and become incapable of work before reaching the age of 65. Both proposals will result in increased expenditure by the Government in their role as an employer. Hence the need for a money resolution, which I commend to the House.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I am conscious of the fact that I rise at quite a late hour to initiate what I imagine will be a short debate on the resolution.
It is a tribute to the co-operation extended in the House and the speed with which we do our business that we have managed to dispose of four votes in a smidgen over 50 minutes. That does not suggest tardiness by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I am also aware that the Committee of Selection—I am not sure in what particular human form—is waiting in the wings with some quite important motions. Therefore, it behoves us not to hold up the House unduly. I want to raise a number of issues with the Minister, however, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman, being a courteous man, will want to respond and explain the exact significance of the money resolution.
We find ourselves in a somewhat odd position, because we are debating the money resolution before we have the guillotine, the Second Reading or any other proceedings. Although my memory goes back 20 years in the House, my naivety or comparative inexperience means that I am used to debating the money resolution after the Second Reading. The more cynical among us remember occasions in which the money resolution has been used as an overflow debate for those who did not get called in the main show. Their contributions may have stretched the rules of procedure to the limit, but they were able to put some of their arguments.
People who are wiser in the ways of the House than I am, and to whose knowledge I defer, tell me that it is not without precedent to discuss the money resolution before the Second Reading. To discuss it before the guillotine motion, however, is rather odd, but then, as I am sure that you have noted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are dealing with an unusual situation. We are, for example, specially empowered by the House as a result of a motion that we discussed on Friday to put down amendments for consideration in Committee, before the guillotine or the Second Reading. It is in that wrong-way-round world that we now find ourselves discussing the money resolution.


When the Minister no doubt courteously replies, he might deal briefly with whether it is normal to have such an order of events, or whether we have put the cart before the House. That is one of a number of metaphors that I intend to mix in my comparatively short speech.
The Minister was good enough to give the House a potted description of the Bill. I am conscious that we are not debating its merit now, but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it deals with substantial sums. Those employers who are responsible for 85 per cent. of the work force will have to find £750 million. Some offset for those employers is proposed in other legislation covering reduced employers' national insurance contributions. Whether matters will be made neutral as a result is a matter for debate.
As the Minister also said, we will, at a later date, discuss the rather interesting peculiarity by which the concept of retirement age is replaced with the definition of 65 years. As the right hon. Gentleman said, that means that women over 60 years, but not yet aged 65, will be able to draw statutory sick pay and their state retirement pension. The Minister is more expert than I and he will correct me if I am wrong, but, as I understand it, the rules on overlapping benefits will not apply. It will therefore be possible for a woman between the age of 60 and 65 to receive both statutory sick pay and the state retirement pension. Otherwise, I hastily concede, the peculiarity will exist only until the year 2020. But that, as they say, is not tomorrow. It is an interesting situation which I am sure that we shall debate later.
Although substantial sums of money are at stake, we are told clearly in the explanatory and financial memorandum that the effect of the Bill on public service manpower is nil. It says:
The Bill is expected to have no effect on public sector manpower.
For all that, we are considering a motion which invites us to consider expenses incurred as a consequence of the Act by a Minister of the Crown. I do not suppose that that means expenses incurred in a personal sense. I should have thought that that was a narrow interpretation of the motion. We are talking about the administration expenses within the Minister's Department. I presume that it has that rather wider meaning.
I should like the Minister to say a word or two about exactly what the expenses are. After all, we know that the Bill will bring about a reduction in public spending, or perhaps have a neutral effect, if we take into account the offset and widen it to take in the secondary legislation that affects the employers' contribution. As we have been told that the Bill will have no effect on manpower—or personnel power—and as the Bill is intended to produce a reduction in public expenditure, which suggests a reduction in the work load, or at best will have a neutral effect, I am not clear where the additional administrative expenses arise. I put this as a serious point to the Minister. He owes us some explanation, because there is no reduction in manpower.
It would not be unreasonable to expect a reduction in staff responsibilities, so why do we require the money resolution? After all, there will not be the substantial—I am sure that it must be substantial—administrative coming and going and expense which is at present the consequence of paying the 80 per cent. of sick pay reclaimed by the majority of employers. Clearly, that must involve a great

deal of paperwork. It must involve the monitoring, processsing and satisfying of claims. If all that is to be swept away, that is a big plus which presumably would result in a reduction in the administration expenses for which the Minister is responsible. It is certainly not clear to me where the additonal expenses, which not only offset the reductions but overtake them and produce a net gain in expenses, come from.
I want to be fair. Other features of the Bill might give rise to some additional expense, at least in the short term. We know, for example, that the definition of the small employer has been changed and that the sum involved in national insurance contributions will rise from £16,000 to £20,000. That may bring in a few more employers who formerly were not categorised as small employers, but now will be. I shall be interested to know whether the Minister can give us an estimate of how many employers will be dragged into that category as a result of the change.
Even if we assume that the change is significant—at present only 15 per cent. of the work force is employed by employers in that category—I do not see how it can overtake the very large cut in administrative expenses that I would expect from the loss of the responsibility to pay the 80 per cent., which is the main thrust of the legislation.

Mr. David Willetts: Does the hon. Member accept that, in his zeal to prove that the money resolution is unnecessary, he has proved that the substantive Bill is extremely sensible?

Mr. Dewar: That is extremely ingenious. The hon. Member, whose constituency I cannot remember—[HON. MEMBERS: "Havant."] Thank you. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) is noted for his ingenuity, which has stood him in good stead in many debates. He is right; in broad terms, I would welcome a reduction in administrative expenditure. However, I would not do so when it is bought at the expense of damage to the competitiveness of British industry and to the position of those people who have been evicted from invalidity benefit, have failed to qualify for incapacity benefit and who may find their position in the job market prejudiced.
Those are not matters that I can canvass now, although I have been tempted by the hon. Member for Havant. However, if he is telling me that the only argument in favour of the Bill—the decisive argument in his mind—is the fact that there is a small reduction in administrative expenses, which might mean that we do not need a money resolution, that is not the test that I would apply. There are much more serious arguments and, in very short order, we shall be able to continue those later this week, unfortunately much restricted by the guillotine.
My final argument in this passage of my speech is that even if one takes the retirement age, translated into the 65 cut-off point for men and women, that could be seen as a simplification—perhaps after an initial period. Again, I would have expected administrative savings, so it reinforces and buttresses my argument about why we need this resolution, which is taking up the time of the House.
I hope that the Minister of State will offer an explanation. Perhaps a money resolution is an automatic process; perhaps it is a sort of Pavlovian reaction within the Department or among the parliamentary draftsmen; or perhaps it is there as a sort of safety net. After all, we know


that under present management the Department of Social Security is very fond of safety nets and looks almost longingly towards any such concept.
I do not think that that is good enough for the House. To mix metaphors—as I threaten to do—if it is a belt and braces situation, in which the money resolution exists just in case, we should not be troubled or bothered with it. The onus falls squarely on the Minister of State to explain away the substantial administrative savings, which seem likely to result from this jettisoning of a major state responsibility, which is to help British industry to remain competitive. The Minister has to explain that away and tell us from where the increase will come that will more than offset the reduction in expenditure that may result.
I recognise that the Minister of State is not a Treasury Minister, but he is obviously expert in such matters, and is no doubt well briefed. I am asking him to complete my education—[Laughter.]—on this narrow subject. I recognise that we are all capable of improvement over a wide field—[Interruption.] Let me explain, as it is an important question and it illustrates my puzzlement. No doubt the Minister of State can deal with it quickly.
As I understand it there will not be a money resolution on the Social Security (Contributions) Bill, which is running in tandem with this Bill. Perhaps there is a simple explanation for that, but I do not understand it, because that Bill will raise a substantial sum for the Treasury. However, that is not the point, and I entirely accept that. I should have thought that administrative expenses would be incurred by the change in the system, if only because there will be more paperwork and changes in the flow of money coming in. I should have thought that some sort of administrative consequences would be inevitable from that Bill. Yet we obviously do not need a money resolution there.
I hope that I have argued reasonably succinctly about the likely savings on the administrative expenses side. If we can do without a money resolution in the Social Security (Contributions) Bill, I do not see why we must be burdened in this way in the Statutory Sick Pay Bill.
The Minister can no doubt explain my final point because, again, it is a "side-way entrance" to the argument about the money resolution. It concerns the position of Northern Ireland. Although I recognise that Northern Ireland has always had a different system and has been seen as a different entity, clause 4(3) of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill says:
There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of this Act.
Basically, that is what we are also authorising in the money resolution. There seems to be a duplication, but I suppose that that is how the system works. However, clause 4(4) says:
Section 3 and this section extend to Northern Ireland",
but provided in brackets is the important exception, "except subsection (3)".
So any talk of money being provided by Parliament to cover Ministers' expenses will apply on mainland Britain but not in Northern Ireland. I presume that that is because an equivalent to the money resolution applies to Northern Ireland. If administrative expenses occur on mainland Britain and are covered by a money resolution, parallel expenses will inevitably flow from the same changes being introduced in Northern Ireland. I understand that there is no

money resolution for Northern Ireland. Indeed, it is specifically excluded from the arrangements that we are discussing by the exclusion in clause 4(4).
When the Minister replies, I hope that he can advise me on the arrangement in Northern Ireland, because those expenses will obviously arise. I presume that they will have to be met by money provided by Parliament, but not under the current arrangements and certainly not by the Bill. Why does no money resolution cover Ireland? Where is the alternative provision? We are then entitled to ask why we need a money resolution for mainland Britain.
I hope that those are reasonably understandable points. They have raised logical and interlinking questions in my mind. As I do not wish unnecessarily to prolong the debate, I am happy to leave it at that point and listen, in a minute or two, to the explanation which the Minister of State will provide.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I should like to follow the excellent example set by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) by raising just one or two questions that reinforce some of the pertinent questions that he raised.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we are in this position. There may have been a breakdown in the negotiations between the two major parties through the usual channels, to which I am not a party. I freely offer myself as a bona fide go-between. Being a nice, natural, trustworthy character, I might be able to sort out the problem and everybody might get home for Christmas in better order.
I am pleased to see that the Leader of the House is present. The hon. Member for Garscadden started by making one or two perfectly pertinent procedural points, with potential precedents attached to them. If the Government start willy nilly, without real justification, interfering with the clear understanding that money resolutions follow Second Readings, they will encourage other people to adopt the same tactics in the future. That is not in the best interests of the House. The Minister of State owes us an explanation about why the Government have seen fit to introduce this money resolution before the Bill's Second Reading.
I know that, in general, money resolutions have fallen into desuetude in terms of the real purpose for which they were originally intended, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and one or two others who specialise in the important task. I pay tribute to them because huge sums of money are voted through in money resolutions—not on this Bill, perhaps, but certainly on others.
The House should pay proper attention to money resolutions and the debates on them are of much better quality if they follow Second Reading. For all I know, different hon. Members will be in the Chamber for Second Reading. It is a worrying sign if the usual rules and established precedents and traditions of the House are discarded without valid reason. Of course, I have read in the press of the procedural differences between the two major parties. I cannot understand why the money resolution has been tabled now.
I want to refer to the merits of the money resolution. It is a restricted motion because clause 4(3) of the Bill states:


There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of this Act.
That is a very restricted statement on which to base a money resolution.
The hon. Member for Garscadden was right to press the Minister on his explanation for introducing the money resolution today. As I understood the Minister, he said that the only additional expenses that would be incurred would be in the Government's role as an employer. The right hon. Gentleman must give us a little more to go on than that. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Garscadden and it appears that all that clause 1 does is abolish a right.

Mr. Scott: rose—

Mr. Kirkwood: I am about to be enlightened.

Mr. Scott: All that we are discussing tonight is the narrow matter of a money resolution. The Government require money to meet their duties under the Bill. The actual thrust of the Bill will be discussed later in the week. Tonight, we are limited to discussing the money resolution. The hon. Gentleman is at risk of going beyond the scope of that.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am prepared to take guidance on procedure from the Chair, but I am not prepared to take it from the Treasury Bench. I shall repeat my question because I think that it is a valid money resolution question—on what is the money to be spent? Clause 1 simply abolishes a right and entitlement under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. How on earth can that incur administrative expenses? I just do not understand. There may be something hidden in the depths of clause 2, which is an enabling clause. The House should consider carefully giving Ministers power to table regulations on such matters.
Although it may be a matter for substantive debate on Second Reading, the Minister knows that those who speak on behalf of small businesses are unhappy about this sort of legislation. If the Minister is saying that clause 2(1) gives Ministers the power to introduce the sort of changes relating to a new small businesses scheme that we have been hearing about in Budget speeches and so on, it is disgraceful that that should be done by secondary legislation under clause 2(1).
Even if it is true that the Government are introducing a new administrative scheme for small businesses, together with all the other changes that we have heard about in Budget speeches, how on earth will that cost extra money? As the hon. Member for Garscadden said, it should cost less because it saves money—and amen to that. Had the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) seen fit to stay for the Minister's reply to the debate, he might have raised a reasonable question about whether it is right or wrong to save money. Like others, I am in favour of saving money.
The Minister's explanation did not persuade me that he has a case for tabling the money resolution today. I object to the enabling powers in clause 2 if the intention is to introduce substantial changes such as those to which I referred. It is not even clear to me whether the resolutions that would be brought forward by way of regulation, which might cost money, would be by the negative or the affirmative procedure. The Minister would do the House a service if he gave the answer.
I am not sure that the money resolution is necessary in any case. Ministers have the ability under national insurance fund and other social security powers to introduce such expenditure without an additional money resolution. No case for one has been made.
Will the additional funding come through departmental expenditure? Will it show up in departmental estimates? Where will right hon. and hon. Members find the increased expenditure that the money resolution presages? It is not clear to me why there are any increases in the first place.
There is no proper justification for this measure. The people who will be affected by the Statutory Sick Pay Bill are afraid of part of its content, and the Minister has not come close to persuading me that the money resolution is proper, appropriate or necessary.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The usual procedure for money resolutions has been observed; the Minister moved the resolution as perfunctorily as he possibly could. The House will not let him get away with that tonight, because the resolution is linked with a Bill that, under a resolution yet to be tabled, will be dealt with in some three hours from start to finish—or six hours from start to finish, including the guillotine resolution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. That does not have much to do with administrative expenses, does it?

Mr. Cryer: Yes, it does.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not in my judgment.

Mr. Cryer: One problem is that the Deputy Speaker's judgment is always accepted as superior—and I accept it as such. I was merely pointing out that the 45 minutes allocated to a money resolution is usually ignored, but it is being used on this occasion because of the limited time that will be allowed to debate the Bill on the Floor of the House and because the House feels that it is being robbed.
Those 45 minutes should be made use of on every occasion. It is important to obtain an explanation from the Minister in this instance, because there will be little opportunity to obtain one otherwise.
The money resolution allows the Minister to be reimbursed
for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Statutory Sick Pay Bill".
We know that the Bill will abolish the reimbursement of 80 per cent. of sick pay to a number of employers but not all. To compensate, national insurance contributions will be reduced.
The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum states that the saving in annual public expenditure will be
about £695 million in 1994–95, rising to £720 million in 1995–96 and £750 million in 1996–97.
Do those figures include or exclude the £100 million cost to Government revenue through the reduction in national insurance contributions? If they are reduced, there will be a loss of revenue. Is that part of the authority that the Minister thinks is required by the money resolution?
The resolution covers "any Act", but the delegated legislation is not on the face of the Bill. We know that the Minister will bring forward delegated legislation because on 1 December, the Secretary of State for Social Security stated:


So far, we have been helping employers whose national insurance bill was £16,000 or less a year. I am raising that limit to £20,000.
That means that the numbers of small firms, as defined by the national insurance contributions, will be widened. The Secretary of State went on to say:
So far, we have been reimbursing 100 per cent. of statutory sick pay for absences of longer than six weeks. I shall start giving 100 per cent. help after four weeks. That will help an extra 50,000 employers, at a cost of £25 million."—[Official Report, 1 December 1993; Vol. 233, c. 1038.]
Is that the extent of the delegated powers which the Minister has in mind? He is seeking the authority of the House in the money resolution for any Act, which includes Acts which are carried out by means of the delegated powers which the Minister hopes will be approved by the House. The Bill dealing with statutory sick pay does not provide details of the extension of the reimbursement for small firms which the Minister is to give.
Frankly, we should not allow open-ended money resolutions to pass through the House without raising questions. The extent and the degree to which we give delegated powers to Ministers in Bill after Bill is wrong. It is not unreasonable, and it is directly connected with the money resolution, to ask questions of the Minister before we hand over those powers to him. How will he use the delegated powers which are contained in the Bill as they affect the money resolution?
At the moment, the information that we have from the Secretary of State is that the arrangements which he is to bring in for small firms will cost about £25 million. That presumably is £25 million which has been authorised by the money resolution. Is that the full extent, or is that figure to increase in future years?
Why was not that information included in the financial effects of the Bill? The Bill was printed on 1 December, but the statement by the Secretary of State was on 30 November. If the information given by the Secretary of State has relevance to the financial effects of the Bill, why was not it included? We are dealing with a money section now. Why was not that information included in the explanatory and financial memorandum?
What is the memorandum for? It is designed to help hon. Members in their understanding of the effects of the Bill. As it is always linked to money resolutions, the memorandum enables hon. Members to have some knowledge of the Minister's ideas when presenting the Bill and obtaining the necessary financial authority through the money resolution. I would ask the Minister why the points made by the Secretary of State were not included in the Bill.
These are relevant questions, and I hope that the Minister, who keeps frowning, will give a reasonable explanation to the House. The three hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have raised pertinent questions. I hope that the Minister will not say, as some do, that he thinks that it is clear in the Bill that the money resolution is wanted and that the House can take it or leave it.
We have only 45 minutes and I want to give the Minister time to reply. We have not got much time for the rest of the Bill. The fact is that we are taking the money resolution first because of the desperation of the Government to get the Bill through. Ordinarily, we would be dealing with it later, but the Government are running out

of time before the Christmas recess. In those circumstances, it behoves the Minister to give the fullest explanation he can, because there will not be much time when the Bill is debated under the guillotine.

Mr. Scott: A brave attempt has been made to press the Government on the reasons for this money resolution. I will attempt to cover the points which have been raised during the short debate.
I want to start with the latter point raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). Under the heading, "Financial effects of the Bill", the Bill makes it absolutely clear that clause 1 will reduce annual public expenditure by the various amounts set out in the explanatory and financial memorandum. It makes it clear that
The savings will be offset by reduction of employers' national insurance contributions.
The key reason why we need a money resolution for the Bill does not involve the general impact of the Bill upon employers outside Government. It is to provide the Government with the money they will need to fulfil their responsibilities as an employer under the terms of the Bill.
As the House will be aware, clause 1 will amend the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992
so as to abolish the right of employers to recover the 80 per cent. of statutory sick pay paid to employees.
In addition, as I explained earlier, it extends entitlement to SSP to working women who fall sick and become incapable of work after attaining state retirement pension age of 60 until the age of 65. That change is necessary because abolishing reimbursement to SSP turns that into a form of pay rather than a social security benefit. It thus falls outside the scope for the pension age derogation from the equal treatment directive.
The provisions of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill and the Social Security (Contributions) Bill interact. The latter Bill is being introduced at the same time as the SSP provisions to offset the impact of the abolition of the reimbursement of statutory sick pay. It has been made clear that, overall, the impact will be to reduce the burden on business by £100 million more than business is having to expend to meet SSP without any reimbursement at all. In other words, the reduction in national insurance contributions will exceed the extra cost of business by well over £100 million. Business as a whole will not be out of pocket.
I estimate that the impact on the Government of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill and the Social Security (Contributions) Bill, which we will be discussing later this week, will be broadly neutral. However, in terms of the narrow effect of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, it is necessary to have this money resolution so that the Government can meet their responsibilities in terms of the SSP element. They will also benefit, in the same way as employers outside will, from the national insurance contributions provisions that will apply outside as well as inside Government.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister answer my point about extending the compensation to small firms? The definition of small firm is to be raised from those paying £16,000 a year in NI contributions to those paying £20,000, and the Secretary of State said that the additional cost of providing 100 per cent. reimbursement after four weeks would be


about £25 million. Is that also covered by the money resolution? Will that be the limit? Will it be applied under delegated powers?

Mr. Scott: It is of course included in the package being considered by the House this week and it is included in the sums that I have discussed. We have deliberately tilted the balance of the package to give extra help to smaller companies, particularly those employing people on lower earnings. Therefore, any extra burdens that occur are likely to fall on larger employers with higher paid employees. I believe that, for a variety of reasons, the House would expect us to tilt the balance in that direction.
Again, we are going outside the relevant scope and getting into the merits of the legislation that we will discuss later this week. Today, we are concerned with the narrow point that we need the money provided by the resolution so that Departments, in their role as employers, can meet their obligations. We shall be able to conduct the rest of the arguments about the legislation, albeit under a guillotine, later this week.

Mr. Dewar: I shall confine myself to the narrow point that the Minister raises and make sure that I understand it. Is he saying that it is not a case of additional administrative costs for administering the system, that it refers to the additional expense incurred by the Government as an employer, and that there will be women civil servants between the ages of 60 and 65 working after 60—I do not know how many there will be in the civil service, but let us assume that there are some—who will be entitled to statutory sick pay which previously was not available to them?
Is there also another expense arising from the 80 per cent. change? In a sense, that is a little illogical. After all, the Government were reimbursing the employer. It seems rather odd to have the fiction that the Government were receiving reimbursement as employer from themselves as a Government. That is a circular argument and not a genuine increase in expense. Is it only the other argument that the Minister is founding his case on?

Mr. Scott: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the national insurance fund is contributed to by Departments in their role as employers, in the same way that any other employer has a relationship with the national insurance fund. Departments have the same responsibilities as other employers. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is simply to meet the responsibilities of Departments in their role as employers—not the cost of the number of people administering the scheme, but to cope with the abolition of their right to recover the 80 per cent. and the extra costs of women between 60 and 65.

Mr. Dewar: My intervention will take only a couple of minutes—[Interruption.] Someone has woken up. I ask the Minister to deal with a Northern Ireland point. It is a genuine curiosity on my part. Exactly the same matter arises in Northern Ireland, but I do not know what the authority for the initial expenditure is. There must be a parallel resolution for the money resolution that we are being invited to pass.

Mr. Scott: For a brief period some years ago, I was Minister for Finance in Northern Ireland. I anticipate that, as the exclusion was at the request of the Northern Ireland

Department of Health and Social Services, appropriate provision will be made through Order in Council in due course. I could be wrong about that, but, as I recall my experience as Finance Minister in Northern Ireland, it is likely to be the answer.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 78.

Division No. 30]
[11.37 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Fabricant, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Fishburn, Dudley


Amess, David
Forman, Nigel


Arbuthnot, James
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Ashby, David
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Aspinwall, Jack
French, Douglas


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fry, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Gale, Roger


Baldry, Tony
Gallie, Phil


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Gardiner, Sir George


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Garnier, Edward


Bates, Michael
Gill, Christopher


Batiste, Spencer
Gillan, Cheryl


Beggs, Roy
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bellingham, Henry
Gorst, John


Bendall, Vivian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grylls, Sir Michael


Booth, Hartley
Hague, William


Boswell, Tim
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bowis, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brandreth, Gyles
Hannam, Sir John


Brazier, Julian
Hargreaves, Andrew


Bright, Graham
Harris, David


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Haselhurst, Alan


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hawkins, Nick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hawksley, Warren


Budgen, Nicholas
Heald, Oliver


Burns, Simon
Hendry, Charles


Burt, Alistair
Hicks, Robert


Butcher, John
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Horam, John


Carrington, Matthew
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cash, William
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Clappison, James
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jessel, Toby


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coe, Sebastian
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Colvin, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Congdon, David
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Conway, Derek
Key, Robert


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Knapman, Roger


Couchman, James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Cran, James
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Day, Stephen
Knox, Sir David


Devlin, Tim
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dover, Den
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Duncan, Alan
Legg, Barry


Dunn, Bob
Leigh, Edward


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Dykes, Hugh
Lidington, David


Eggar, Tim
Lightbown, David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Luff, Peter


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evennett, David
MacKay, Andrew


Faber, David
McLoughlin, Patrick






McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Madel, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spring, Richard


Malone, Gerald
Sproat, Iain


Mans, Keith
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marlow, Tony
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stephen, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stern, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Streeter, Gary


Milligan, Stephen
Sumberg, David


Mills, Iain
Sweeney, Walter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sykes, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thomason, Roy


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tredinnick, David


Ottaway, Richard
Trend, Michael


Paice, James
Trotter, Neville


Pickles, Eric
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, David (Waveney)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Viggers, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Richards, Rod
Waller, Gary


Riddick, Graham
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Waterson, Nigel


Robathan, Andrew
Watts, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wells, Bowen


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Whitney, Ray


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Whittingdale, John


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Widdecombe, Ann


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Willetts, David


Sackville, Tom
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Soames, Nicholas
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Spencer, Sir Derek





NOES


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Donohoe, Brian H.


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dowd, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Enright, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Etherington, Bill


Bradley, Keith
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Cann, Jamie
Foulkes, George


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Fyfe, Maria


Clelland, David
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Coffey, Ann
Hall, Mike


Connarty, Michael
Hanson, David


Cryer, Bob
Hinchliffe, David


Davidson, Ian
Home Robertson, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Hood, Jimmy


Dewar, Donald
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Dixon, Don
Hoyle, Doug





Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Miller, Andrew


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Morgan, Rhodri


Illsley, Eric
Morley, Elliot


Ingram, Adam
Mudie, George


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Pickthall, Colin


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Pike, Peter L.


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Kirkwood, Archy
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Litherland, Robert
Primarolo, Dawn


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Purchase, Ken


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rendel, David


McCartney, Ian
Short, Clare


McKelvey, William
Skinner, Dennis


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


McMaster, Gordon
Spearing, Nigel


McNamara, Kevin
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Turner, Dennis


Mahon, Alice
Tyler, Paul


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Wallace, James


Martlew, Eric
Watson, Mike


Maxton, John



Meale, Alan
Tellers for the Noes:


Michael, Alun
Mr. Terry Lewis and


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. Harry Barnes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred in consequence of the Act by a Minister of the Crown.

ENVIRONMENT

Ordered,
That Mr. Kevin Barron and Mr. Nick Raynsford be discharged from the Environment Committee and Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. John Denham be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

HOME AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That Mr. Mike O'Brien be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr. Stephen Byers be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

NATIONAL HERITAGE

Ordered,
That Mr. Bryan Davies be discharged from the National Heritage Committee and Mr. Bruce Grocott be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Ordered,
That Mr. Adam Ingram be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Ken Purchase be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

TREASURY AND CIVIL SERVICE

Ordered,
That Mr. John Garrett be discharged from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and Mr. Mike O'Brien be added to the Committee.—Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Policing (Derbyshire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Mrs. Angela Knight: I am grateful for this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the matter of policing in Derbyshire, which is of great importance to my constituents and to the residents of the county. I thank the Minister for being here to reply, and I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) for being here to support me.
The Derbyshire police force is in a uniquely difficult position. For the second year in succession it has not been granted its certificate of efficiency, and it is essential now that there is a positive future for the force, for its sake and particularly for the residents of the county. The policemen and policewomen of Derbyshire are doing an excellent job fighting crime in the county, but the force has suffered for many years from a lack of adequate funding by Derbyshire county council.
The sequence of events that has resulted in the police force losing its certificate has been documented in a series of reports by Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary. In his report of the 1990 inspection of the Derbyshire force the inspector stated:
The County Council's corporate strategy does not permit any realistic growth in police spending in real terms and this has meant a virtual standstill in developing the Constabulary and its resources for the last 8 years … the consequences of Derbyshire … are evident.
Those were his exact words. He went on to say:
The bureaucratic requirements of the County Council and the Police Committee are a major obstacle to the efficient management of the Force.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Stop reading.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. If the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) wishes to intervene and ask the hon. Lady to give way, that is one thing; otherwise, I should be grateful if he would keep his thoughts to himself.

Mr. Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for any hon. Member to read his or her speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The use of copious notes is quite acceptable, particularly on the Adjournment motion.

Mrs. Knight: The report concluded that the constabulary was
in several significant respects, on the brink of inefficiency.
It stated:
unless immediate and positive action is put in hand to improve the position, there must be a real risk of the Derbyshire Constabulary being adjudged inefficient".
Those were the words of the inspector in 1990. He then made a series of recommendations. The police force addressed these recommendations with considerable success, but the police authority dragged its feet: it refused to allow the chief constable greater freedom to manage the force—something that had been allowed in other forces for many years.
In the summer of the following year, 1991, a further inspection was made——

Mr. Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a new point of order.

Mr. Hoyle: Yes, it is Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is the difference between using copious notes and reading a speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not this evening. Mrs. Knight.

Mrs. Knight: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The subject is important—for Derbyshire and for other places in the country.
In 1991 the inspector found a shortfall of police on duty on the streets. He also found a low level of morale and a high rate of sickness. Despite—[Interruption.]

Mr. Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you bring to order those Conservative Members who are asking me to leave the Chamber because I am bringing to your attention the conduct of an hon. Member. I shall ask you to name the hon. Member if that hon. Member continues to point to me. Is it right for an hon. Member to ask another hon. Member to leave the chamber?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is only one hon. Member who can do that—me, as the occupant of the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to listen to the debate, he should do so, and the same applies to the Conservative Members sitting behind the hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight).

Mrs. Knight: In January 1992, the inspector returned to Derbyshire. Despite all the previous warnings that he had given, he found that the force was considerably under strength—by 125 officers. He found that in that year there were fewer officers than there had been in 1981. The ratio of police per head of population in Derbyshire was considerably worse than the national average. Crime was rising, the police force was doing a good job despite its difficulties, but its resources were scant because of the many years it had been kept short of funds by Derbyshire county council.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Knight: I will not give way.
The inspector spoke to the chairman of the police authority. He learned that the Derbyshire constabulary had not even been allowed to submit a budget to the police authority for consideration. After considerable persuasion, the Labour chairman of the police authority told the chief constable that he would allow him to submit a budget that year but that he was not prepared to support a budget that was set at the standard spending assessment, despite an earlier request by the county council to the Department of the Environment to increase the SSA for policing purposes. The chief constable bid for £76 million. The county council reduced the amount. The police force did not get its certificate of efficiency.

Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Knight: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman could have asked for this Adjournment debate. He could have asked me before if he wished to intervene. More importantly, he could have asked his Labour colleagues on the county council to ensure that the police force did not get into its present difficulties.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the nature of this debate about Derbyshire, and the fact that I am a Derbyshire Member of Parliament, is it in order for an hon. Member to acknowledge that when the Derbyshire county council asked for an extra 112 police officers the Government refused?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair.

Mrs. Knight: In all his reports, the inspector has rightly and properly excluded the police officers and their civilian colleagues from criticism. Instead, he declared that they were working far beyond the level that might reasonably be expected in the circumstances. It was not their fault; the fault clearly lay at the door of the county council.
Despite the difficulties, the force has had many successes. There are many things to the credit of the police officers. There is dedication to duty in all ranks of the service; the force was early into civilianisation so that more police officers could be used on policing duties; there are child protection units; the special constabulary is fully part of the force; there are crime prevention panels; and the force has good relations with the community and with schools. Those are excellent things that the force has done. I have the highest praise for those with whom I have contact—the present superintendent and the previous one, the chief inspectors and inspectors, and other policemen and policewomen and civilians of the Erewash division.
In 1992, the inspector set the Derbyshire police force six targets: to fill police and civilian vacancies and recruit up to its establishment by April this year; to resume promotions and train staff; to provide for police overtime to the metropolitan average; to undertake essential repairs; to improve the vehicle fleet; and to resource the scientific support for the force in Derbyshire. Many gains and improvements have been made. Efforts have been made at all levels.
The budget situation has improved, giving the police forces its first real growth for nearly 10 years. The Home Office has treated the force sympathetically with regard to capital. The establishment is now for 1,850 officers, but it is not yet up to that strength. Last winter, the chief constable said that he required £86 million in 1993 to maintain the momentum. The police authority only recommended slightly under £84 million. The county council reduced the figure to £80.2 million. That is why the force is still under strength. No wonder the force has its difficulties—it was £6 million short of its required budget. The six targets have not yet been fully reached and the certificate of efficiency was not granted again last month.
Not surprisingly, many members of the force feel that the community is judging them harshly—that they are not efficient. Although the inspector has praised the members of the force on many occasions for their dedication—and rightly so—questions are being asked and criticisms are being made about a situation which has allowed police officers to operate in those circumstances and which has allowed a deterioration in the quality of the service to the public. All too often, the needs of the Derbyshire police force and the Derbyshire public are not being met.
The chief constable responded to this year's report in a document entitled "Policing in Derbyshire—Meeting the Challenge". There is a challenge that must be met. The police service in Derbyshire and the residents need to know about their future.
Shortly after my election to the House, I spoke about the benefits of establishing a police authority separate from the county council. I look forward to the day when that happens in Derbyshire. I know that such a change will be in the Bill when it comes before Parliament. I hope that any parts of the Bill that it will be possible to anticipate early will be anticipated for the benefit of Derbyshire. The force is below strength, but it is starting to recruit again and the noble Lord Ferrers said on 16 November that he was hoping that it would be able to recruit to within 2 per cent. of its establishment.
Requests to increase the establishment of the police force have, surprisingly, not been made in every year over the past few years. This year, however, such a request was supported by the police authority. It would have had the advantage of increasing the police element of the SSA. When a force is under its existing establishment level, however, it is not altogether surprising if the establishment number is not increased. Yet Derbyshire police force finds itself in a unique situation, and one that is not of its own making. It is a special case, and it will be an advantage to all of us in the county if the numbers of policemen and policewomen are increased. Increasing the establishment numbers is one way, but accelerating civilianisation is another.
If the proposals that the chief constable recently made to the police authority are approved, that could result in a further 80 policemen and policewomen being released for policing duties next year. However, such a move requires the county council to approve a budget of £88 million, and there are real concerns that the budget will not be approved at that level. I ask the Home Office to do all that it can to ensure that that prudent proposal by the chief constable proceeds.
Additional capital approvals were made by the Home Office as recently as last month. If that were repeated again, it would also relieve some revenue cash for more policing. Looking to the county council has become an increasingly fruitless exercise. As a consequence, the residents of Derbyshire are looking to the Home Office to see what it can do to help to ensure that the police force gets the resources that it needs. The proposed changes to police funding, including cash-limited budgets, will make next year's budget particularly important. I trust that the Home Office formula for allocating budgets will take account of, and cater for, forces such as Derbyshire that have been continually under-resourced.
It is a fine police force, but that police force and 1 million residents have been neglected by the county council. Policemen and policewomen have been left to do a difficult job in increasingly impossible circumstances. The Derbyshire police force needs to see a future that is clear of the political controls that have bedeviled it. That will allow it to give the county the policing that it wants to give, and that the residents of the county deserve and have every right to expect.

Mr. Charles Hendry: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) on the way in which she introduced the debate. In my constituency, as in hers and those of my other colleagues who represent Derbyshire constituencies, the fight against


crime is the top priority. Our constituents would therefore welcome the powerful way in which she spoke. I endorse what she said.
The removal of the certificate of efficiency for a second year is no reflection on the work of the police. They do a tremendous job for all our constituents, and we owe them a great debt of gratitude. A few weeks ago, I spent the night with the police in Glossop—not, I hasten to add, in one of their cells, but going out with them on patrol. I found a force acting as we would wish our police to work. The policemen and policewomen were courteous, efficient, hard working and dedicated. Over these difficult years, they have put in many hours of overtime, very often unpaid. They have worked long hours in difficult circumstances because they have wanted to put first the safety of the people of Derbyshire.
The problems that we face in Derbyshire in our policing go back, as my hon. Friend said, for some years. She has pointed out clearly how, over the past year, £86 million was requested, and £83 million was then endorsed by the police authority but the county council allocated only £80 million.
It was the county council that left our police force £6 million short. It was the county council, through the hostility that it expressed in previous years from the top towards the police, which led people not to apply to that police force.
Nothing shows as starkly the situation that the police in Derbyshire face as the figures produced last week on staffing levels in local authorities. They reveal that there has been some improvement in the past year in the number of those employed by our police force. They show that, of the 31 county councils, Derbyshire is fourth in terms of the increase in the number of its full-time employees. They also show that we lie fifth in terms of the increase in the number of part-time employees.
The starkest contrast is that provided by the comparison between the number of police in Derbyshire and the number of county council employees. Derbyshire police is thirteenth in the list of employers, whereas Derbyshire county council is eighth. The police force is the tenth largest employer of part-time employees, whereas the county council is the fourth largest employer of such workers in the country.
Those figures show that, over the years, the county council has systematically chosen to stuff county hall with bureaucrats and its friends. It has even employed the brother of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who had previously been sacked by it. Such is the way in which the council has sought to look after its own political interests at the expense of policing in Derbyshire. That is the crime that has been committed for many years in Derbyshire and our constituents have suffered.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) also wishes to speak, so I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion. In the local newspaper, the Buxton Advertiser, Councillor Eric Swain challenged me to answer the charge, "Who is to blame?" for the policing in Derbyshire. The answer is the county council, which has chosen to back other priorities than the police. That policy has undermined our police. I hope that that is clear enough for Councillor Swain to understand, because he and his colleagues chose those priorities.
In a couple of years, when the chief constable is able to decide how he spends the resources and on the appropriate staffing levels—a welcome change—that wretched, dreadful, miserable county council will have been abolished. On behalf of my constituents, I am pleased to support my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is an Adjournment debate a debate, or is it merely a presentation of one particular point of view, without any opportunity for the normal cross debate that occurs in the——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Barnes: Opposition Members would then be able to express an opinion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the point of order. The hon. Gentleman has attended many Adjournment debates and he knows full well that, whichever hon. Member is successful in the ballot, it is for that person to choose the nature of the debate and to decide who may or may not take part in it.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given that the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) referred to me, would it be in order for me to have a chance to speak, because with three Tories in a row making speeches, and a Tory Minister present to reply, the debate is rigged?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not need to repeat that it is for the hon. Member for Erewash, who was lucky in the ballot, to decide who may participate in the debate.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) on winning her place in the ballot and on the clear way in which she presented her case. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) on the points that he raised.
It was on 22 January 1991, almost three years ago, that I raised the same issue on the Adjournment. Since then, huge efforts have been made in Derbyshire. I should like to pay particular tribute to the police officers and the civilians who work in the force who have made valiant efforts to meet the strictures that were sensibly imposed by the inspector of constabulary, Mr. Dear.
Considerable success and changes have been achieved, especially on recruitment, training and re-equipping. There have also been some changes in attitudes. Everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash said was true, but I detect a shift in attitudes, particularly since Mr. Bookbinder, the former leader of the council, has left politics altogether and since the recent gaoling of the deputy leader of the county council, Mr. Shaun Stafford. Once the senior people go, attitudes change.
In my view—in this I may differ a little from my hon. Friends—the refusal to grant the efficiency certificate this time may be failing to take some of the changes into account. The decision runs the danger of being damaging. A continual refusal to grant the certificate becomes part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
My hon. Friends are right in saying that, if Derbyshire police are to return to full efficiency, they must have more officers. Mr. Dear said that himself. But the force cannot


even recruit up to its establishment because it is at the upper level of its budget and the budget, at £80.2 million, is exactly, according to the Home Office's standard spending assessment, what it ought to be. We are stuck. The Home Office's own inspector is now more critical of the Home Office than of Derbyshire police.
I ask Home Office Ministers and the Treasury to take the matter seriously—rather more seriously, perhaps, than some Labour Members here tonight. I simply do not believe that a solution is beyond the grasp of our Government. We look forward to the changes in the pattern of police financing and management which are promised to us in the police Bill, but those measures are not likely to come into effect for some 18 months. Meanwhile, we must have more police officers in Derbyshire. I plead with my hon. Friend the Minister to take the matter seriously and do something about it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) on her excellent speech and on her stalwart support for the cause of policing in Derbyshire, in which she has been joined in the Chamber by my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), and for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) and my ministerial colleagues my hon. Friends the Members for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) and for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin).
We have heard some eloquent praise of the good work done by Derbyshire police. I join in that praise. The basic problems that Derbyshire police have faced are not the result of a failure on the part of the police. In many ways, and in different circumstances, the Derbyshire police have coped and are coping extremely well. The report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary makes that clear. It has also been made clear by the Minister of State, Lord Ferrers, and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on various occasions.
I also agree with my hon. Friends that Derbyshire's problems are not caused by standard spending assessments.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Wardle: No; I want to make some progress.
The council has done its best to hide behind the SSAs. As the council well knows, and as the House well knows, SSAs are merely a guide. The council seems to be content to budget to spend well above its SSAs on just about every other major council service except the police. SSAs cannot take account each year of past adverse spending choices by the county council.
On a previous occasion, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) spoke about SSA,s. In a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South, he said:
Should not the Government ensure that the SSAs for many items, but particularly those relating to the police are increased?"—[Official Report, 11 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 880.]
The hard fact is that Derbyshire county council has underspent its SSAs year after year. In 1991 it underspent by 15.8 per cent. The next year it fell short by 17.2 per cent. The year after that it budgeted below its SSA by 4.3 per cent. and in the current year it has done so by 2.6 per cent. There we have the nub of the problem.
What has made things worse has been a cumbersome and unnecessary system——

Mr. Barnes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Wardle: No; I would like to make some progress. A cumbersome and unnecessary system of bureaucratic council control has sapped morale year after year. The Labour Members present tonight seek to cover that up by their interventions and some of the points that they have made. It has prevented police force managers from doing the job that has been required. It is true that during the past couple of years there have been some relaxations, but unnecessary controls remain in place even today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash was also right to point out that Derbyshire's problems are clearly not a result of ungenerous treatment. This year, for example, an extra £4.5 million capital allocation has been made available to it. When Derbyshire has made no bid for any increase in the complement of police officers—as was the case in five of the past 11 years—we cannot help. As my hon. Friends and the House will know, under the present system, a bid for more money has to be expressed in terms of additional police posts. Yet, during the periods 1984–87 and 1988–90, Derbyshire made no bid for additional posts whatsoever.

Mr. Skinner: It did—112.

Mr. Wardle: As the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has reminded us, this year Derbyshire belatedly made a bid. He will also be aware that this year, in the climate of sensible financial constraint, there have been no other bids for additional police. The existing problem is simply the result of a failure to bid for additional police posts. If Derbyshire had kept up with the national average of all police forces, excluding the Metropolitan police, it would have had an additional 51 posts, with the additional funding that that implies.

Mr. Barnes: If there is a problem and there are insufficient police officers in Derbyshire, why has the present request not been responded to? Why do not all hon. Members who represent Derbyshire—including Conservative Members—agree to see the Minister as part of a joint delegation to discuss funding, irrespective of their attitude to how the problem has arisen and whether it lies with the Government or the county council? Hon. Members will have different views on how the problem has arisen, but, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said, we have a chance to resolve it. Why can we not have a joint deputation to discuss that?

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman persistently ducks the fact that in past years Derbyshire has underspent its SSA for police and has overspent in other areas. For example, last year it overspent on personal social services by 21 per cent., while underspending on the police in spite of the fact that the problem was clear for everyone in the House and in Derbyshire to see. It is no use the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) trying to cover up for mistakes that are all too obvious.
I shall seek to write to my hon. Friend with details of the programme that will remedy the situation in which Derbyshire still finds itself. I know that she will bear in mind that the reforms that are to be introduced in the police Bill, which will begin in another place in the new year, will greatly ease the position of the chief constable of


Derbyshire, and all chief constables, because they will be able to allocate their resources as they see fit between officers and equipment and will be able to meet the requirements of Her Majesty's inspectorate.
I shall also write to my hon. Friend about the steps that my right hon. and noble Friend has agreed with Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary and the chief constable of Derbyshire—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eighteen minutes past Twelve midnight.